Letters to the Editor
-
I'm impressed by responsible action
And yesterday Chris Dodd had that in spades. That IS what leadership is about. It's about doing the right thing by upholding your oath to the Constitution and the American people. It's about standing up to the freewheeling crony government we've had these past few years.
Harry Reid's actions and statements in light of these developments truly show how slimy he is. He's supposed to be the leader of the Democratic majority, but we've had to fight him as if he were a Republican. It's also equally interesting to note that the two "star, front-runners" - Clinton and Obama- didn't take a stand as Dodd did. It makes me wonder whether their priorities are to the rule of law in America, or if they're more interested in winning the American high school popularity contest.
I'm deeply impressed by Dodd's actions. This is a President you would want to have. Someone who is principled, has a respect and understanding of the law, and importantly, someone who actually listens to their constituents. Our current President doesn't give a damn what the American people think, or what is best for the majority of us. Wouldn't it be refreshing if we had a president who did?
-
@Paul Dirks
I think we should be a little careful about throwing too much praise at the ten senators who voted ney to not advance the bill and too critical of every senator who voted yeah to advance it. As this excerpt from the NYT article you linked says, Kennedy voted yeah and he certainly gave outstanding remarks about why no immunity should be included.
“But not all of the 76 senators who voted to advance the bill necessarily agree entirely with the administration. Some do, but others voted to advance the bill so they can criticize it or offer amendments.
For instance, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, voted to advance the bill because, he said, the issue is “too important to hold up any longer.” Mr. Kennedy said he strongly favored the version backed by Senator Leahy, who himself voted on Monday to advance the competing bill, rather than the version that just advanced, saying that version would grant “vast new authorities to spy on Americans.”Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he would offer an amendment that would substitute the federal government as defendant in lawsuits, in place of the companies.”
-
It's a conspiracy! Bah! Humbug!
Gallup: Ron Paul Falling Behind....Alan Keyes?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061338.php
-
Actually my point was
That the story was written and filed well before the events that it was describing had played out and as a result conveyed the absolute opposite tone than what actually happened.
Just an example of getting it first vs getting right biting a particular reporter in the butt.....
-
Kitt
With all of that in mind, I do think it a might rude for us to be suggesting to him that he should drop his run for President.
I'm not sure who's saying that. What little I've seen has been just that he try again for Majority Leader, which doesn't have to be to the exclusion of his presidential campaign. Ultimately, I would never advocate Mr. Dodd (or some of the other underdogs) to simply drop their primary campaigns until at least some of the primaries and caucuses are done, because for them much of their effort has more to do with inserting a particular narrative into the race, and perhaps positioning themselves for other options after the nomination. These efforts do have value, and it explains why underdogs stay in it despite dismal prospects.
So, for what it's worth, I think Dodd should stay in the race through at least Iowa and New Hampshire, where he can draw added national attention to the constitutional and other issues he has championed with sometimes lonely devotion. Already, even as a third-tier candidate for President, he has boosted his stature and voice tremendously. For that, I am very thankful.
-
Public Financing Of Elections Needed Too
Glenn, thanks for your rousing account of how the telecom immunity FISA bill got defeated this go-round. All the people who worked for the withdrawal of the bill deserve to be commended for displaying the type of real political opposition to King George that Pelosi- and Reid-style Democrats pay lip service to.
That said, there is one other takeaway that I got from your account. You mentioned that Jamie Gorelick and other pro-telecom immunity lobbyists blessed sympathetic congressmembers with massive infusions of cash to stiffen their resolve. That factoid demonstrated yet another reason why public financing of campaigns is a necessity. Telecom and other lobbyist money encourages elected officials to take short-term political positions that screw up the public good in the long run. Without the lure of tainted lobbyist money to finance campaign costs, public funds for campaigns increase the odds that elected officials can resist the siren call of selling out the people who elected them.
-
Arne Langsetmo
$1000 per violation ... wow! Do you really think there will be 1 million taps! No, per company more likely a few thousand, maybe 10,000 so $10 million each, 100,000 is $100 million.
Seriously, this is not about monetary damages .... the repugs ar lying... the monetary damages are tiny in the terms of the TelCos budgets.
-
Paul D's link to that Times story...
...prompted an email from me to Clark Hoyt, their Public Editor.
In it I also apologized for not being able to completely restrain my sarcasm. I tried, I really, really did. It leaked out anyway... just civilly.
-
The bogus "reluctant telco" argument
One of the oddest arguments made by proponents of immunity is that unless the telecommunications companies are made immune from accountability, they will no longer cooperate with the government's secret requests for information needed for national security. Fearful of litigation, the companies would refuse to furnish information. This argument makes sense only if the telcos supply information voluntarily and the government cannot provide assurance that supplying the information is within the law. But laws like FISA remove uncertainty about compliance, just as they spell out what the government may acquire and what judicial approval is required. And if the information sought is truly essential to national security, the law will require the telcos to supply it rather than rely on voluntary cooperation. Only an executive branch with the contempt for law shown repeatedly by the Bush administration -- and its enablers in Congress -- needs to worry about lack of voluntary cooperation. Instead of proposing to amend FISA, to conform the law to its view that the president has unreviewable authority to nullify the Fourth Amendment, the administration chose to ensnare the telcos in a probably unlawful conspiracy. And most telcos willingly cooperated.