Is the best response to start deluging Reid, Feingold, Wyden, et al, with phone calls? What to do now?

Reid's office in Washington. Let him know!

I attempted to have a staffer either confirm or deny reports that Sen. Reid intended to disregard/override Dodd's hold. Expressed my utmost disbelief that this situation might be even remotely plausible.

Staffer: (Rough approximation) "The Senator has yet to release a statement pertaining to the matter, so I can't tell you what's going on, becuase I don't really know."

The only explanation I have is that he wants the Democratic base to be so disgusted and discouraged that it will stay home on election day and hand the Republican the congress and the presidency. His reward would be in not getting labeled by Limbaugh as an al-Qaeda collaborator.

I just emailed Reid letting him know my disgust for his intended action on this horrific bill. I'm heading back over to Dodd's website now to let him know that we will stand with him against the unprincipled action of the Democratic "leadership" - oh, I hate saying that as much as I hate saying "President" Bush. I made one donation to Dodd yesterday, and I'm making another one today just to prove that we will stand with him if he continues to act in the way that we've been begging Democrats to act for the past 7 years.

I had no problem calling Reid's office, but decided to send an email as well, so that they will have a written record:

Dear Senator Reid,

Please clear up the public confusion regarding your planned actions on the FISA bill. Surely you cannot be contemplating bringing flawed legislation including retroactive amnesty for telecom companies to the floor over the hold of Senator Dodd. Such an action would not be fitting of a Senate Majority Leader, so please clear this up and let us know that that is not your intention.

However, should you be planning such a move, I suggest you resign now, both from your role as Majority Leader and from your role as a Senator. Our Constitution is now in danger from those who would grant immunity to companies that have already been determined by a judge to have broken the law. For you to be a part of an attempt to grant amnesty for known crimes violates the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution. Should you wish to familiarize yourself with this concept, please visit either Senator Dodd or Representative Kucinich. Both are known to carry copies of the Consitution with them and I am sure they would be glad to share it with you.

Please do the right thing in this matter for your country.

Link for sending email: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

I will be furious. They will scream Apre Moi le Deluge.

When I look back at the number of valid bills that were prevented from coming to a vote because of a "hold" placed on them by Republicans, I find it shocking and upsetting that the "hold" placed by Senator Dodd in response to a Democratic outcry would just be ignored.

This is the same institution that would not even tell the public who had placed a "hold" on a bill, despite it being in the public interest to know who was holding up important legislation. Special interests were always served best by honoring a "hold" on a bill.

Perhaps that is part of the problem. Senator Dodd responded to the will of the people, and their plea to restore our Constitution. Harry Reid knows that this came about because of the actions of a mere collection of individuals who happen to believe in the Rule of Law. No lobbyist will be harmed, and no Senator will have his dirty laundry aired, by ignoring Senator Dodd's "hold". Therefore, the "hold" simply does not matter.

This confirms what we have often feared to be true: A "hold" is just a measure to protect either one's self, or the special interests of lobbyists. If none of those issues is at stake, and the "hold" is placed because the people want it, then the "hold" can absolutely be considered irrelevant, and thereby ignored.

nt

http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

Send Senator Reid a polite, emphatic, erudite message about why he really, really, shouldn't side-step Senator Dodd's hold.

We're getting rid of the Republicans in 2008. Next on the list: the DNC and their DINO cohort, that think that America is (and should be) run by multinational corporations. This cave-in is only about money, not about the politics of immunity. That's why it is vital to elect an Obama or Edwards, who both actually have the phrase "public financing of campaigns" in their vocabulary, than the endlessly triangualting, pro-lobbyist Clinton.

Recent accounts suggest that you have intentions of circumventing Senator Dodd's hold on any legislation which inludes immunity for telecoms that apparently have been providing customer data in a manner that is currently contrary to law.

Clearly, if the telecoms had been acting in good faith, there would be no need for immunity. The administration has done everything in its power to conceal the conduct it has engaged in and as things stand, there is no mechanism left to determine just what laws have been violated and how greivously our privacy has been invaded. The current lawsuits being pursued by the EFF remain our only hope for discovering the truth.

If what is being suggested is true, I can only assumne that you are proposing to be complicit in behavior which was clearly criminal at the time it was engaged in.

I'd be delighted to hear that I am mistaken in my view.

Paul, I'm in the Green Room for the Diane Rehm show. I intended to ream Harry Reid. I like the phrasing of your letter. May I "borrow" it?

I got the same, "I don't know what's happening; I'll be glad to pass along a comment," answer, when I called and asked if it was true Reid was going to ignore/override the hold.

I asked her to ask Senator Reid why Democrats seem to have a such a big problem holding corporations, as opposed to individuals, accountable when they break the law.