I asked this question in a previous comment section here and didn't get a reply, probably because it was posted toward the end of the thread when sane people have already moved on to the latest post.

The question:

Can a fillibuster be utilized to stop this Bill from becoming law, and does Chris Dodd (or anyone else, for that matter) intend to continue the previous opposition in this manner?

Not to rain on Sirota's construction too much but populism can be fun, until a Huey Long gets involved. I think I may have to agree with Atrios:

"The problem was never money in politics, it was the concentration of big money."

I prefer to view this as the perennial battle between Burkean conservatism and reactionary radicalism. The GOP is reactionary radicalsim and they have the concentration of big money behind them. The Democratic party is the new conservative party in American politics and they do seem to be getting vast amounts of grassroots and netroots financial support in the form of smaller individual donations from "the people".

The Chernobyl Kid said (my response in bold) --

The history of American politics has been about those with good intentions having to compromise with knuckle-dragging bigots in order to keep worse things from happening.

The road to HELL is paved with the very best intentions.

That is why the U.S. had slavery for the first ninety years.

Which was REALLY GREAT for everyone...except the slaves. But I'm certain they understood your intentions were good.

This is another such compromise. We're talking about Georgia, remember--a state where triple-amputee war veteran Max Cleland was beaten by a Republican labelling him a friend of terrorists.

You're about one compromise away from better understanding the plight of the slaves.

Obama needs as many Democrats in the House and Senate as he can get--otherwise he'll be a lame duck president. (Remember, Republicans only need 50% plus one to get stuff done, but Democrats need a filibuster-proof majority.) To do that, he needs to make some ugly compromises. Just as FDR did to get the New Deal, just as Washington and Jefferson and Madison did to get the Constitution passed.

Power to the...er...OUR politician! What is slavery but a step along the well-intentioned road to the White House!

Imagine if Obama backed the progressive (btw in the conservative south "progressive" rhymes with "Communist") black candidate against the right-wing white guy. Imagine how the Republicans would spin that in Georgia, and imagine where that would send Georgia's electoral votes.

Okay, I'm doing it, I'm imagining...a politician who puts principle first.

Am I defending Obama? Yes, I am--if "defending" means recognizing that he has chosen the lesser of two very evil evils. I don't like what he chose to do but I am reasonably confident that he felt he had to do it to prevent something worse from happening on a strategic level. I also--and this is key--I also am quite confident that he is really, really unhappy about having to make that choice. Those of us in private life have the luxury of sticking to our principles. Let's cut the guy some slack.

The lesser of a "very evil evil", as you have put it, it is still very evil. At least we know where you stand.

After reading Glenn's Update II, I believe the use of the term "lawful order" in media accounts is not a reference to the standard for determining telecom immunity for prior snooping, but the standard going forward. Unfortunately, however, the proposed legislation requires only that the certification delivered by the government to the telecom's includes the government's certification that the snooping order is lawful. In other words, if the prez says it is, that's sufficient to immunize the telecoms from any prospective liability. Pretty outrageous.

Too bad, so sad.

"Majority Leader's Office"

202-225-3130

Thanks brendancalling for the # and the aka

It has finally sunk in to Barack Obama that he is going to be president. He is undergoing a transformation. Assimilation into the Borg, as in Star Trek - The Next Generation, is taking place.

This being the case, what can we expect for the next four years? A man at the mercy of events. Global warming is now kicking into high gear, with severe weather, regional droughts, and rampant forest fires showing no signs of abatement. Oil prices are not likely to return to their formerly low levels. The prospects for unlimited economic growth are poor. And the rest of the planet no longer sees the "U.S." as the shining light of human civilization.

It is probably fitting that Barack Obama has succombed to the pressures of the corporate state. No one man will change the power structure anyway. It will fall of its own weight, like a dinosaur. It will be a great lesson for us all, that we can't rely on a savior.

In this light, George W. Bush is more of a "hero." By being so brazenly criminal he has done more to advance the demise of the corporate state than a relatively good person like Barack Obama could ever hope to accomplish.

In the next four years a lot of reaping of what has been sown will come to fruition. The Mideast, in particular, will very likely be the catalyst for upheaval worldwide. In concert with the effects of changing climate, our corporate power apparatus will more than likely undergo a transformation. Collapse is a better word for it.

I was going to alternate the bumper sticker on my car's back window from Obama to Nader, but now will probably leave the Nader sticker in place. It's not much of a statement, but it will probably help me drive a little safer.

Can a fillibuster be utilized to stop this Bill from becoming law, and does Chris Dodd (or anyone else, for that matter) intend to continue the previous opposition in this manner?

-- Jebbie

Barring some procedural impediment or other parliamentary tactic or trick the GOP and Blue dogs could invoke or employ that I'm not familiar with, what you would need is enough Senators willing to keep talking to oppose this and stall it, in shifts, until this congressional session has expired. I'm not too optimistic.