GG - Would it be possible to list the telcoms involved? I know that Qwest has been focused on, for its refusal to participate. Were all the other major players on board?

The reason I ask this is that I think it is going to be interesting to watch the possible impact of the granting of telco immunity (or not, but it looks like it's going to pass) upon the stock prices of these corporations. Anybody who had taken a position last time around, only for Sen. Dodd to start fouling things up, may have had their fingers burned. Perhaps that was why Sen. Reid was quite so unhappy about things not running to script, it could have been quite a Christmas bonus for folks.

The fight goes on. It's good for the presidential campaign to have a subject like this still in the news.

Leadership is making the tough decisions. And the right decisions.

Go Dodd.

This has been said before, but it is worth repeating. Publicity counts, and the campaigns get it. There are various ways to attempt to get a question to one of the pres. candidates. Every now and then it works. If enough of those questions are about telecom immunity and FISA, some will get through. Romney in particular has declared himself "not-Washington", and so he will avoid questions like this if possible because he is "Washington" on things like this. Do not let him.

Fight them on every front and make them show their blatant disregard for the law and for the rights of the people.

Because the Protect America Act is scheduled to expire in early February, it will be necessary to extend it by 30 to 60 days, but that is seen by the Senate Democratic leadership only as a tool to enable them to work out a deal with the House to ensure that a bill acceptable to the President is sent to the White House promptly.

Filibuster the extension of the PAA. When it expires, we revert to the old FISA bill. Keep the pressure on Reid and continue the calls to replace him as Senate Majority Leader because of his disregard of Senate practices in ignoring Dodd's hold on retroactive immunity.

I agree that one of the Democratic candidates needs to step up at this time: Taking a real stance against such a corrupt gift to the telecom industry -- through real leadership rather than the obligatory, forced issuance of meaningless statements -- seems like a rather compelling way for at least one of those candidates to distinguish their campaign.

One difficulty here is that Edwards has made the most noise on the campaign trail about standing up to corporate interests, but he is no longer in the Senate where he could stand with Dodd in fighting immunity. He can, however, at least make retroactive immunity a key example of corporate interests run amok in the current state of affairs in Washington.

There is a netroots effort coalescing around Edwards and an attempt, planned for tomorrow, to eclipse Ron Paul's one-day fundraising record. To my mind, if Edwards were to come out today with a hard-hitting, extended rant on retroactive immunity, the netroots fundraising for him would hit a frenzy that would be truly astounding. I urge those with direct contacts in the Edwards camp (e.g. ability to email Joe Trippi or Elizabeth Edwards and know that it will be read and considered) to make this plea to them this morning.

Personally, I'm still sitting on the fence. With Dodd out of the race, I'd like to support Edwards. If he would come out today with a clear, extended statement, on the stump, explaining the moral depravity of retroactive immunity, I'll be there and hit the credit card for him tomorrow.

We Americans have been lucky to have had so little personal experience with totalitarianism, that those of us alarmed at government encroachment on our right to privacy and free speech have an uphill battle educating Americans about the real threat being posed by the Bush Administration's assault on our freedoms. And it will take mobilized public opinion to force the cowardly, cynical Democrats who are willing to betray our most basic principles for their thirty pieces of silver. (Yeah, I know, maybe the Judas comparison is too harsh. Then again, maybe not.)

You can run for public office or you can be a lobbyist. You can do one or the other, but once you choose, you can never do the other. Period. It is just extended conflict of interest, broadly defined. It seems Draconian but 5 will get you ten Reid and Rockefeller will be lobbyists when they retire, probably telecom specialists.

I may not be recalling this correctly, or I may not have understood it at the time, but I thought that Dodd had some maneuver that didn't allow Reid to apply a 60 vote majority to each amendment--that the non-filibuster filibuster rule is one that has to hold without objection, amendment by amendment.

Does anyone remember what I am talking about?

Despite Obama saying on the campaign trail that he will stop "Scooter Libby justice", I haven't heard him lead on this issue like Dodd, nor have I heard Hillary lead. Why aren't they being asked about this issue? This is a crucial issue that should tell voters what kind of candidates we have. While Edwards is not in the Senate he should be asked about this as well.

A first grade graduate of the nsa snoop school.

What do I see? A mesmerized president doing what!

Sitting in the White House oval office at lunch time.

What do I see? Mr. Hadley licking Mr. Bush's shoe soles.

~

P.S. I thank Gordon (OT) for the pg. 31, Jan 13th. The 8:45-post,

dontmeannothing.htm# ...etc., 'McCain spokesman John King of

CNN'..

And I'm ot-so-sorry. Stay on this day's topic and thread.

I am slow catching up. The hurrieder we go the be'hinder we can be? apologies. The DVD is put to music and makes the scrip more real, Dirigo, RMP, and Arne etc., Cheers. I'm over/out.

Dear Beth, bless you. Achoo. Thanks, Sincerely, Art James. diddly moi. scram. okay. adios. Amiga/amigo, omega, and Glenn Knocks the fake media and nsa snoops. In the end, let them creep's eat shoe leather soup @ the w.h. pig sty hut. 'um big stinkers. slops. 'um bad to sup with? gads. merci? kiss all lovers.

Stay ot!

Pizza pie.

Oh, good bye.