Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Overnight FISA developments

-- Feingold and Dodd will filibuster, and Reid will support it. Their allies include Boxer and Wyden as well. The majority leader likewise supports their efforts to strip the bill of its retroactive immunity provision.

-- Reid has also indicated that the bill may not come up before the Independence Day recess, a very minor victory in itself:

Anyone watching C-SPAN? Senator Reid just informed his colleagues that, because of all the other bills in the queue (like the housing bill, and the Iraq supplemental), FISA may not get a vote until after the July 4 holiday recess.

This is honestly the best we can hope for with this bill. Sens. Dodd, Wyden and Feingold are ready to filibuster and gamely trying to get colleagues to do the same (Sen. Dodd's speech tonight was a bravura performance), but realistically there aren't the numbers to stop cloture. However, that could change if the delay continues. And getting this to the recess means being able to get in a lot of Senator's faces on their trips back home. In addition, there's going to be a very short window in August where a ton of must-pass bills have to get through Congress, and throwing FISA in with that mess means that anything can happen.


Operative word above is 'may'. It could get pushed through and done by Friday. Lots of fluidity regarding the Senate 's calendar and pending legislation.

-- If you care to know why Texas Democrats Al Green, Gene Green, "Zero" Rodriguez, rumored vice-presidential candidate Chet Edwards, and ninety other House members chnaged their votes on FISA, well ... just follow the money:

On March 14 of this year the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for phone carriers who helped the National Security Agency carry out the illegal wiretapping program without proper warrants. Ninety-four House Democrats voted in favor of this measure--rejecting immunity--on March 14, then ‘changed’ to vote in favor of the June 20 House bill--approving immunity.
“Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart?” asked Daniel Newman, executive director of MAPLight.org, “Their constituents deserve answers.”
MAPLight.org's research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week’s FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:
Comparing Democrats' Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging: $8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)
88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.


I'll leave this topic be until the vote takes place. Obama's leadership still appears to be MIA. But perhaps he is working behind the scenes and outside of my view. If I learn something to that effect I would be very pleased.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

FISA vote tomorrow

Sen. Russ Feingold, on the pending FISA bill:

“I do think this is a total farce with regard to the immunity [for telecommunications companies]. It basically guarantees the immunity,” Feingold said. “It doesn’t simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law. It may prevent us from ever getting to the core issue … which is the president ran an illegal program that could’ve been an impeachable offense.

firedoglake:

===========

Telcom immunity means we will never find out what happened in the PAST. OK, that's bad. Cases that can't be used as precedent can, over a long period of time, erode the legal system as we know it. That's bad, too.

But changing the definition of who can be surveilled under a basket warrant to remove any requirement that the surveillance subject be a spy or a terrorist or any kind of bad guy--that's way beyond bad.

My personal guru for all things FISA, David Kris, has two posts up over at Balkinization. The first one has some definitions and basic premises. The second, made my blood run cold.

Here's the money quote:

It is interesting to compare the pending legislation to the TSP as it may have been implemented just prior to, and just after, the January 2007 FISA Court orders. There appear to be two main differences. First, the pending legislation applies only to targets located abroad, while the January 2007 orders may have allowed surveillance of targets in the U.S. (as long as they were making international calls). Second, more importantly, the pending legislation focuses only on the target’s location (or the government’s reasonable belief about his location) not his status or conduct as a terrorist or agent of a foreign power. In other words, there is no requirement that anyone – the FISA Court or the NSA – find probable cause that the target is a terrorist or a spy before (or after) commencing surveillance. [emphasis mine]

Read the whole article. And then call your senators.

============

Recapping: every Senator that votes for this bill is wiping his or her ass with that "goddamned piece of paper" called the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment.

Call Barack Obama's Senate office -- 202-224-2854 -- and tell him he needs to vote NO as well as support a filibuster.

Harry Reid has indicated he would "try" to strip retroactive immunity from the bill, but we saw how hard he tried the last time the Senate approved a bill like this. Dodd and Feingold and a few others will stand up for the rule of law but how hard a fight we can manage is to be determined.

Today is the day. Tomorrow is probably too late. Make a phone call.

Monday, June 23, 2008

The "pop" in pop culture


He was the father of pop culture as well:

Although some criticized parts of his later work as too contentious, Mr. Carlin defended the material, insisting that his comedy had always been driven by an intolerance for the shortcomings of humanity and society. “Scratch any cynic,” he said, “and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.”

He was 21 the year I was born. He was too old to trust by 1967, and was still one of the seminal voices of the Beat generation.

Carlin began his standup comedy act in the late 1950s and made his first television solo guest appearance on “The Merv Griffin Show” in 1965. At that time, he was primarily known for his clever wordplay and reminiscences of his Irish working-class upbringing in New York.

But from the outset there were indications of an anti-establishment edge to his comedy. Initially, it surfaced in the witty patter of a host of offbeat characters like the wacky sportscaster Biff Barf and the hippy-dippy weatherman Al Sleet. “The weather was dominated by a large Canadian low, which is not to be confused with a Mexican high. Tonight’s forecast . . . dark, continued mostly dark tonight turning to widely scattered light in the morning.”


Do you remember his character as Marlo Thomas' agent in "That Girl"? How about "With Six You Get Egg Roll"? Neither do I.

By the end of (the Sixties), he was one of America’s best known comedians. He made more than 80 major television appearances during that time, including the Ed Sullivan Show and Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show; he was also regularly featured at major nightclubs in New York and Las Vegas.

That early success and celebrity, however, was as dinky and hollow as a gratuitous pratfall to Mr. Carlin. “I was entertaining the fathers and the mothers of the people I sympathized with, and in some cases associated with, and whose point of view I shared,” he recalled later, as quoted in the book “Going Too Far” by Tony Hendra, which was published in 1987. “I was a traitor, in so many words. I was living a lie.”


So he rebooted. As "counter-culture".

In 1970, Mr. Carlin discarded his suit, tie, and clean-cut image as well as the relatively conventional material that had catapulted him to the top. Mr. Carlin reinvented himself, emerging with a beard, long hair, jeans and a routine that, according to one critic, was steeped in “drugs and bawdy language.” There was an immediate backlash. The Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas terminated his three-year contract, and, months later, he was advised to leave town when an angry mob threatened him at the Lake Geneva Playboy Club. Afterward, he temporarily abandoned the nightclub circuit and began appearing at coffee houses, folk clubs and colleges where he found a younger, hipper audience that was more attuned to both his new image and his material.


(Arrested by Milwaukee police in 1972, after reciting the "Seven Words".)

By 1972, when he released his second album, “FM & AM,” his star was again on the rise. The album, which won a Grammy Award as best comedy recording, combined older material on the “AM” side with bolder, more acerbic routines on the “FM” side. Among the more controversial cuts was a routine euphemistically entitled “Shoot,” in which Mr. Carlin explored the etymology and common usage of the popular idiom for excrement. The bit was part of the comic’s longer routine “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” which appeared on his third album “Class Clown,” also released in 1972.

“There are some words you can say part of the time. Most of the time ‘ass’ is all right on television,” Mr. Carlin noted in his introduction to the then controversial monologue. “You can say, well, ‘You’ve made a perfect ass of yourself tonight.’ You can use ass in a religious sense, if you happen to be the redeemer riding into town on one — perfectly all right.”

The material seems innocuous by today’s standards, but it caused an uproar when broadcast on the New York radio station WBAI in the early ’70s. The station was censured and fined by the FCC. And in 1978, their ruling was supported by the Supreme Court, which Time magazine reported, “upheld an FCC ban on ‘offensive material’ during hours when children are in the audience.” Mr. Carlin refused to drop the bit and was arrested several times after reciting it on stage.


Carlin got even more cynical in the years that followed (probably why I enjoyed him so much) ...

By the ’80s, he was known as a scathing social critic who could artfully wring laughs from a list of oxymorons that ranged from “jumbo shrimp” to “military intelligence.” And in the 1990s and into the 21st century the balding but still pony-tailed comic prowled the stage — eyes ablaze and bristling with intensity — as the circuit’s most splenetic curmudgeon. During his live 1996 HBO special, “Back in Town,” he raged over the shallowness of the ’90s “me first” culture — mocking the infatuation with camcorders, hyphenated names, sneakers with lights on them, and lambasting white guys over 10 years old who wear their baseball hats backwards. Baby boomers, “who went from ‘do your thing’ to ‘just say no’ ...from cocaine to Rogaine,” and pro life advocates (“How come when it’s us it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken it’s an omelet?”), were some of his prime targets.

He had battled drug and alcohol abuse, as well as heart problems -- including one heart attack and two open heart surgeries -- in recent years, but that hadn't tempered him.

Still, when pushed to explain the pessimism and overt spleen that had crept into his act, he quickly reaffirmed the zeal that inspired his lists of complaints and grievances. “I don’t have pet peeves,” he said, correcting the interviewer. And with a mischievous glint in his eyes, he added, “I have major, psychotic hatreds.”

Now I would like to see a week-long Irish wake, followed by glowing tributes from newsmen and women on all channels, followed by a televised funeral and the flags at Thirty Rock flown at half-mast, please.

The Weekly Wrangle

Here's this week's edition of the Texas Progressive Alliance's Weekly blog round-up, compiled from posts submitted by member blogs.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson takes apart the new GOP business tax in Tearing At The Margins Tax.

Off the Kuff published the rest of his convention week interviews, with Joe Moody (HD78), Ernie Casbeer (HD59), and Rep. Juan Garcia (HD32).

McBlogger asks why are the Republicans so ideologically driven on energy policy? Then he remembers that knowledge isn't so useful in the faith-based economy.

Something stinks about the Webb County sheriff's election. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme can't wait to find out who did what.

BossKitty at BlueBloggin points out that we have more than just McCain and Obama running for president. And Then There's Bob Barr; one-time conservative Republican, current Libertarian Party presidential nominee, offered a scathing critique of Sen. John McCain today and predicted he would garner substantial conservative Republican support in a handful of battleground states critical to McCain in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama needs Texas to win the presidency, but only -- as with recent previous Democratic nominees -- for its money and not its electoral votes, claims PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

WhosPlayin piles on after Joe Barton, Michael Burgess, Pete Sessions, and Kay Granger hold a press conference to blame Democrats for high fuel prices. It was so bad that even Fox 4 News called B.S. on it.

Lightseeker
at Texas Kaos continues to keep an eye on Blackwater's shenanigans. The latest is that Erik Prince loves him some Sharia law--if it will quash a lawsuit for him. Wonder how long it will be before the company dress code includes a burqa?

refinish69 reviews the GOP's Big Bad John at Doing MY Part For The Left. While the video is wonderful for a laugh and has wonderful production values, it is as full of crap as John Cornyn's career as a US Senator.

Vince at Capitol Annex takes down the new platform of the Republican Party of Texas.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

My electoral college vote prediction, 6/22

I'll begin this weekly prognostication today, and continue it through the first week of November, based in part on data compiled at electoral-vote.com and FiveThirtyEight.com. If you want to play around with your own map, click below or click here.

Today's map reflects my view that Obama turns Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico from red to blue. Florida and Nevada are too close to call, as is Georgia (due to the Libertarian candidacy of favorite son Bob Barr).

<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

Sunday Funnies







See, it's not just me

who's irritated about Obama and FISA.

BooMan:

Unless this all part of a brilliant plan to popularize the campaign of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and thereby win some extra states, Obama is making a big mistake in moving to the right of Arlen Specter. And even if it is a political move, the FISA debate is about bedrock principles of constitutional rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Political dodges and maneuvers are inappropriate.

But here's an honest question. Who is saying this bill is good and necessary? Look around. Is anyone saying that who is not implicated in the wrongdoing? The New York Times thinks it is a terrible bill. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee (Sen. Specter) thinks it's a terrible bill. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Sen. Leahy) thinks it is a terrible bill. The ACLU thinks it is a terrible bill. The entire blogosphere thinks it is a terrible bill. Who thinks it is a good bill?

Even Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer are not saying it's a good bill. They're calling it a good compromise or whatever. It's bad law. It's wrong to support this bill.

Atrios:

... Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an "abuse of power" scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention.

Of course it's not just Obama but Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer who think we're stupid for not supporting their bad bill:

That is my primary objection, here. Democrats: if you're going to cave, just cave. Don't draft up flagrantly insulting talking points that pretend you've gotten something in return -- you haven't. You haven't gotten squat, except for the knowledge that the illegal is now legal, that past illegalities will be swept under the rug, and that future illegalities will be met with no action more substantive than a few harshly worded reports.

We all know how much money the telecommunications companies spent "lobbying" you for this legislation; fine. So just come out and say it -- you can't piss off corporate contributors that are that important, so the Fourth Amendment can go suck eggs. We all know you don't have any confidence you can both stand up for the rule of law and get reelected in the face of conservative demands that our laws be considered obsolete in the face of our own pants-wetting fear; fine. So just say that, and quit painting us as rubes who won't know any better if you shove a few noble-sounding sentences our way.

Pelosi's right about one thing, though. This is a democracy, not a monarchy. In a monarchy, the king would just violate the law at will, and nobody would say a word. In a democracy, the President gets to violate the law at will, and we'll jump through months of hoops to change the law so that he retroactively didn't violate it.
After all, Emanuel says these are the "civil liberty protections" you "deserve." If the President said it, that makes it legal, and if you don't like that new interpretation of your rights, hey -- you're just against "compromise." In this case, "compromise" means blanket immunity for everyone involved: they don't have to prove that what they were doing was legal -- because they can't, we know it violated the law -- they just have to prove that the President told them to do it anyway, and we'll just forget the whole thing. And let them keep doing it. And they don't actually have to come clean on the extent of what "it" was, or is.

Here's Digby, with the calm voice of reason (and the tie-in to the other outrages, as well as a little bit of excuse-making for the Dems which I personally refuse to buy):

Here on planet earth, the civil liberties issues, along with torture and Guantanamo and the entire GWOT legal regime is a central concern because I have watched a very ruthless and cynical right wing show themselves to be bent on rebuilding the police state of J. Edgar Hoover and the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon. I don't think it's a good idea. It's not that I don't realize that the Democrats have an equally awful history or think they are the exemplars of all that is true and good, it's just that in recent years the Republicans have shown they have a real fetish for undemocratic authoritarianism, and in a complicated system, you have to focus on those who are creating the most obvious and immediate threats.

Democrats have certainly enabled them over the years and will likely continue to. They are politicians, after all, not comic book superheroes. But there should be no doubt to anyone who isn't wrapped up in immature freshman dorm cynicism, that there is a distinct difference between those who believe in the concept of an imperial presidency and those who are simply weak and corrupt. They both undermine freedom, but the first is many orders of magnitude worse than the second.

And lastly emptywheel, who's closer to my level of upset:

In case you couldn't parse the three bolded sentences yourself, here's my take on them.
  1. I will make a showy effort in the Senate on Monday to get them to take out immunity. I will lose that effort 32-65. But hey! I can say I tried!
  2. But don't worry, little boys and girls, Inspectors General are an adequate replacement for our third co-equal branch of government!
  3. Nice little bloggers! Aren't you cute! After you demanded accountability we gave you piggy lipstick and fig leaves and told you it was time to move on while we important Senators told you--in polite terms--to fuck off.

The Senate vote is scheduled for Thursday. Don't waste your time with Texas Senators Perjury Technicality and CornDog. Call Obama's Senate office, starting tomorrow morning, and tell him what kind of vote you expect of a constitutional scholar.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Happy-to-bitter ratio is out of round

So we'll have a few funnies early this weekend.

(So that no one confuses me for being overtly jolly, the Obama widget on the right column is in danger of being removed until I know for certain exactly how he intends to vote on FISA next week -- as well as what he means on NAFTA. It's coming off pretty quickly if he indeed supports either one. Running to the middle is for losers.)




Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama needs Texas

but only as an ATM:

While Texas is unlikely to turn blue this November, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama may still be making a few more trips to the Lone Star state now that he has made it official that he is not taking public financing.

Obama's decision to forgo $84 million in public money means he will have to really crank up his already formidable fund-raising machine. And Texas has always been generous to candidates, regardless of party. Indeed, Lone Star donors have showered Obama with far more campaign bucks than the Republican nominee John McCain. According to the Federal Election Commission Obama has raised $7.8 million in Texas compared to $6.3 million for McCain.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director who spoke to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday, indicated that the candidate, who has not visited Texas since before the March 4 primary, will be back.

"We'll be down there a lot,'' Gibbs said. But don't expect lots of those big, noisy rallies like the candidate held during the primary season. More likely the drop-ins will consist of discrete private fund-raisers.

Saw this coming after Boyd Richie spurned them prior to his coming-out party as a superdelegate, and they payed him off in full for that by shining his shoes in Austin.

They're even now, and both have cover for pretending to do something to get down-ballot Texas Democrats elected without actually doing much of anything.

With the local consultant class following Texas Monthly's lead and making excuses in advance for Rock Noriega losing to John Cornyn, the circle of defeat is almost complete and we're still two weeks away from the long July 4th weekend.

So here's my five-months-out prediction: Obama will have all the money he could ever need and gets elected the nation's 44th President handily -- over 300 EV. The US Senate and the House of Representatives increase their majorities, the Democratic Senators achieving a near veto-proof count of 58 seats. As in 2006, a big blue wave rolls across the country -- but hits a concrete seawall at the Texas border. Noriega, Nick Lampson, and a handful of Texas House members (such as Juan Garcia) lose, most of our Harris County executive and judicial races are very narrow defeats, "just five more seats in the Texas House" results in three net victories (but Chairman Richie declares victory anyway), Tom Craddick and David Dewhurst jam through Voter ID in 2009, and the battle cry for 2010 from the Texas Democratic Party becomes "focusing on a few, select, targeted races in order to take the Texas House, just in time for redistricting".

(Somebody please prove me wrong. Please.)

And hey: don't forget all those great activities next week.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Why did the Democratic leadership capitulate on FISA?

Because -- and truthfully, this is not just mere speculation on my part -- they're bigger fucking corporate whores than even their Republican counterparts:

"Congress is poised to once again pass disastrous surveillance legislation, now upping the ante with a thinly-veiled giveaway to some major campaign donors.

"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing -- all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole -- ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

"The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them.

"The telecom companies simply have to produce a piece of paper we already know exists, resulting in immediate dismissal. That’s not accountability. Loopholes and judicial theater don’t do our Fourth Amendment rights justice. In the end, this is politics. This bill does nothing to keep Americans safe and is a constitutional farce.

"The process by which this deal has come about has been as secretive as the warrantless wiretapping program it is seeking to legitimize. While members and organizations who would seek to fiercely protect the civil liberties of Americans have been denied a seat at the table, one wonders how present the powerful telecom lobby has been.

"Leadership should be leading to protect the Constitution, not bowing to pressure from Republicans, the White House, and the telecommunications companies.


So again we have Democratic leadership in the House (Steny Hoyer) and Senate (Jay Rockefeller) who betray other Democratic leaders in both chambers who have beaten back telecom immunity several times already in this legislative session.

Like Steve, this is the sort of thing I simply cannot stomach and cast a ballot for in November. After all, when the corporate advertising and sponsorship banners at the Democrats' state convention are more prominent than the ones at the GOP's, we probably don't have a party for the people anywhere within sight.

Regarding FISA: there's fighting back to do, and it must be done tomorrow.