Month: March 2008

Much Needed Perspective

It seems in in a somewhat circumspect mood today and am finding other people similarly reflective on the state of affairs in left blogistan. Or rather, I’m at least down to post some sober perspectives this morning. So…take it away Athenae.

The real reason I’m not in a state of panic about the loss of civilization as we know it is that I was never under the impression that blog world or even liberal blog world was never any different than any other place, which is to say, at times full of awesome, at times full of suck, and populated by assholes and insects and bullies and people who are prone to snap at the same in equal proportion to how such creatures are distributed elsewhere in the universe. I do not gnash my teeth at the passing of a great utopia because seriously, anybody who thought the political Internet was a utopia was fucking kidding himself to a really accomplished degree. I mean, in other news, music isn’t what it used to be, and kids today are total sluts.

I’ve met some fantastic people during my time blogging, I’ve met some real goofballs, and some people I wouldn’t throw a rope to if they were drowning, and I would hazard most of you reading this would agree, even if we might disagree on any given day about who belongs to what group. I don’t see the last group as evidence that the first is somehow less valuable, or that response toward the latter two should somehow change because it’s primary season. People who are being jerks should be called on it, people being sweet to you should get pats on the head, if you can’t agree on who’s who then you should go in a room and sit with your thoughts until you figure it out, and there is, once and for all, a difference between an argument and a fight: An argument is, “You’re wrong.” A fight is, “You’re wrong, and you’re an ASSHOLE.”
…
There are worse things than fights. We can glue ourselves back together. This can be repaired. And in the end, our hurts and bruises will not be the end of us, or the end of what we’re trying to build here. We’ve been knocked down by bigger things than one another. We can get back up from this, too.

Or not, if we don’t choose to, but let’s not kid ourselves that this is one of the things outside our control.

Because everything must always come back to the Democratic primary, I’d say that I don’t see major, permanent rifts being created by the fact that some people online like Obama, some people online like Clinton, and other people online are still disappointed that neither Gore nor Feingold ran. There has been nastiness, but so what? People are active in the liberal political blogosphere because they have opinions about what’s happening in our country. I’m fairly certain that those people will still care about restoring the Constitution or getting universal health care or ending our presence in Iraq after Clinton or Obama loses the nomination. It won’t be doomsday, it probably won’t even be a terribly bad day for the health of the blogosphere. Give it a couple weeks, and the losing candidate’s partisans will be so petrified by the thought of President McCain that they will be working hard and strong against him and *gasp* for the person they had previously opposed.

That’s not a bad thing. It’s not a product of weak will. It’s not a flip-flop. It’s just the recognition that some things are more important than what we thought yesterday.

The Future of the Delegation

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; } .flickr-yourcomment { } .flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; } .flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

Hilltop Brigade Event, originally uploaded by himesforcongress.

This is what Connecticut’s congressional delegation will look like come January, 2009. From left to right: Rep. Chris Murphy, Jim Himes, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Joe Courtney, Rep. John Larson.

Looks pretty awesome, if you ask me.

The Point of Elections

Thers opens up a can of whoopass on what matters in our support for candidacies and our pursuit of a government that provides for the needs of the citizenry.

And this is not just a problem for us Liberal Fascists. Look at how long the anti-abortion maniacs prayed and organized and voted, and then they finally got their guy and their legislature — and then pffft, really. That has to count as the longest Intimate Massage without a Happy Ending in all of recorded history. Which is fine for those freaks; they get off on it, so they’ll always come back for more, eventually, as per a dynamic John McCain knows damn well and is right now banking on, the fucknose perv.

But it shouldn’t be like that for liberals. The system does force us to get behind a particular candidate according to the electoral clock. But we need to recognize the two big dangers of the system. ONE, the confusion of the person with the point — we want specific things, like no more stupid wars, decent healthcare for all of us, no more assholes telling people who or how they should fuck. More and better jobs. That sort of shit. We will get that when we make the system give it to us: in other words, by building a majority that is capable of Bending the Political Class to Our Iron Will. (I just put that last bit in for Dr. Load.) TWO, the problem of assuming that just because you won an election, you’ve won the day. You have not. You’ve won the day when your kids get sick and you don’t have to blow anyone or lose your house to get them to the doctor.

All of which is to say that HRC has pissed me the fuck off with her McCain fluffing of late, Obama strikes me as just some guy from Illinois, and John McCain wants to kill everyone because he’s deranged.

So if you’re wondering who I support in the primaries, the answer is, I don’t fucking know. Or care, particularly.

It’s US that matters.

The takeaway, for me at least, is that this isn’t just about picking the Right Candidate and defending them and their honor from every affront to the death for the next eight months. The progressive movement online has to seek to create a relationship where politicians and candidates respond to the needs of the country, as dictated by what people tell them. And no, Michael O’Hanlon, Peter Beinart, and Bill Kristol are not the people I’m talking about.

The Problem With Dems on FISA

We will likely know next week whether or not Glenn Greenwald’s reporting on Democrats caving on FISA is substantively correct or not. He has said it comes from unimpeachable sources and while some in the House are denying it, it seems others are corroborating it.

The entire process on this legislation since the Senate passed the SSCI bill last month has taken place behind closed doors. At first, when the Republicans were not at the table, we received regular press releases blasting them from the Democratic leadership in Congress. Lately the only reports we’re getting have been more negative. House Intel Chair Silvestre Reyes expressed openness to retroactive immunity this past weekend on Wolf Blitzer. Then the Washington Post reported that a “compromise” would involve splitting retroactive immunity off for a separate vote from Title I FISA provisions, which would lead to its passage. Speaker Pelosi expressed what may or may not have been a strategic critique of focusing on retroactive immunity when other provisions were also important. With today’s report from Greenwald, we saw what is effectively a predictable offshoot of what had been reported as going on behind closed doors over the last week-plus.

There is a pervasive “Why?” running through my mind. Why would a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress choose to work on legislation that is contrary to the wishes of a majority of their caucus, a majority of the American people, and the US Constitution? Why would they compromise in such a way as to expand executive powers at a time when the Bush administration is continuously revealed as having no regard for the authority of the legislative branch nor the civil liberties of American citizens? Perhaps most importantly for the mechanics of this legislative process, why would Democrats negotiate a compromise when Republicans aren’t at the table?

Last month House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said:

“Democrats continued today to work hard on crafting a new FISA bill that will keep our nation safe and protect our civil liberties. We were disappointed that not only Congressional Republicans but also the Bush Administration refused to join us in these critical negotiations. This refusal simply puts partisanship and politics ahead of our nation’s urgent national security interests.”

But what was that in reference to? At the time, Democrats from the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees and their staff were negotiating a new FISA bill while Republicans boycotted the meetings. That is, the three committees that rejected retroactive immunity and weak oversight provisions (House Intel, House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary) were negotiating with the Senate Intel Committee. It seems that the Democrats were trying to come to a consensus before the Republicans sat down to negotiate.

Given that multiple news reports in the last week or so have suggested a compromise that included voting on retroactive immunity (and ping-ponging so the Senate adds it in and the House then approves it is in the same ballpark in my book), I would have to guess that Jay Rockefeller has held very firm in his anti-Constitution stance. The process that we’re seeing is one that will produce retroactive immunity, unless pro-Constitution Democrats find a way to derail the process. The good Dems who oppose immunity have not been able to get Rockefeller to move.

What has surely added to Rockefeller’s unwillingness to budge is the January 28th letter from 21 Blue Dog Democrats stating their support for Rockefeller’s SSCI bill and their willingness to vote with Republicans to ensure that it and retroactive immunity pass in the House. Rockefeller has effectively had these House Dems and a similar cohort in the Senate to join Republicans to get immunity and a bad bill passed. Between the two chambers, conservative Democrats have given Rockefeller the ability to get bad legislation serious consideration to the point that the process may move forward and allow immunity to become law.

There have been some good Democrats in this. Pelosi, Conyers, and Hoyer have certainly been a refreshing change from Harry Reid. But if Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs get their way, the leadership of Pelosi, Conyers, Hoyer, and Reyes must be questioned. If they couldn’t get around Rockefeller, why would they move forward with Rockefeller? Why not leave FISA as is until 2009? FISA worked for over 30 years to keep us safe and the PAA was only initially passed to excuse past Bush administration lawbreaking with the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The sunset of the Protect America Act has not left us in danger, as its warrants will be valid up to a full year after the sunset.

I’ll admit, there’s a certain extent to which this is Monday morning quarterbacking. When this legislation left the Senate last month, I wasn’t calling for no action on it, but rather for Democrats to push through the RESTORE Act. But that doesn’t change the fact that if passing good legislation is not possible, the best strategy would be not to pass any legislation. We’re seeing this argument play out in the work environmentalists are doing against the Lieberman-Warner bill.

This is a complicated, shady process with strong adversaries working against Democratic interests. I don’t know what will come out of these negotiations, but I hope the leadership has the sense to recognize that “Do No Harm” is the best operating principle when it comes to how legislation impacts the Constitution and the rule of law.

Update:

Just as I identify Rockefeller as a key obstacle, Rockefeller’s office says he won’t agree to the deal reported by Glenn Greenwald and Paul Kiel.

Wendy Morigi, Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) spokeswoman, tells me that Rockefeller would not agree to a bill that fits the above description, but could give no specifics. All she could say was “we continue to work with the House to try and find agreement and resolve the differences between the House and Senate bill.”

My guess is Rockefeller wants to be 100% assured that retroactive immunity will pass. We’ll see if Rockefeller gets his way or if the Democratic leadership finds a way to work around him. And no, ping-ponging the bill to require votes on RI does not count as them overcoming Rockefeller.

Greenwald: House FISA Cave Imminent

Glenn Greenwald breaks word of the House “compromise” legislation that will effectively give the Bush administration everything they want, closely in line to the bad Senate legislation. It seems that the House will pass a Title I bill that has some minor changes from the Senate bill and set up a separate vote for retroactive immunity, which will pass.

The plan of the House leadership is to pass this specific bill in the House, send it to the Senate (where immunity will be added in by the same bipartisan Senate faction that already voted for immunity), have it go back to the House for an up-or-down-vote on immunity (which will pass with the support of the Blue Dogs), and then compliantly send it on to a happy and satisfied President, who will sign the bill that he demanded.

The bill was drafted with the participation of, and input from, Nancy Pelosi and Silvestre Reyes, at the very least.

There has been one recurrent theme coming from Democrats in both the House and Senate since last October. “Trust us. Let the process take the course.” Every step of the way, when things look bad and objections were raised, we’ve been told that contrary to indications suggesting otherwise, Democrats really were doing everything possible to stop immunity, increase oversight, and pass good FISA legislation. And yet, as this process continues behind closed doors, the course of legislation has lead further and further away from the rule of law.

The House had ample opportunity to stand up to both the Senate and the Bush administration. All they had to do was hold ground on their principles and stand by the RESTORE Act. Now we find that they have embraced a process that will assure the passage of retroactive immunity alongside what looks to be a FISA bill that expands executive power to spy on Americans.

With regard to what changes Greenwald reports will come in the new House legislation mean, I will simply point out that the House passed a very effective, rule of law and civil liberties oriented bill with an admirable Title I last November. It was called the RESTORE Act. By modifying the Senate version of Title I legislation in this compromise, the House has effectively abandoned the best intelligence legislation we’ve had either body of Congress pass since the Protect America Act took effect.

No doubt we will be told by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate that this was the best they could do and, for some unknown reason, they had to pass something. I will be impressed if anyone defending this process and this result can say with a straight face that they have not completely and totally failed to honor their oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Update:

Glenn updates his post with this note:

This report was based on unimpeachable sources close to the whole process. I’m getting a little bit of pushback already from others claiming that the plan and strategy of the House Democratic leadership is more nuanced than what I’ve described, and that the bill they will promote is better (the statement: “A House aide disputes both the specifics of the draft and the presumed strategy”). I’ll be happy if that’s true (though I doubt it), and hopefully, the fact that there’s pushback at all means this is still a vibrant, ongoing process that can be affected. I’ll be happy to add any statements, denials and the like.

I agree. It’d be great if Glenn’s sources were wrong, but I remain concerned about how the ostensibly pro-Constitution leaders (which thus far in this process has included Pelosi, Conyers, Leahy, Hoyer, and sometimes Reyes) are dealing with not just a solidly anti-Constitution Republican caucus, but Rockefeller and the Blue Dogs.

Update II:

TPM Muckraker is reporting that the oversight will be somewhat improved from what Greenwald reported. Some of the differences are nuanced, but other parts are clearly better including a ban on blanket warrants. On the key issue of retroactive immunity, it looks like Greenwald’s reporting is correct.

Of course, just because the House bill does not have retroactive immunity does not mean that the final bill to arise from the process will not. As the Politico reported last night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) now favors a strategy of “ping-ponging” alternatives back and forth between the two chambers. What that means is that the House could vote out a bill that does not contain retroactive immunity, but that the Senate could vote to add it back in, sending that back to the House, where such a modified bill might pass with the help of moderate Democrats. Of course, such a strategy could also lead to stalemate, as the Politico points out.

The likely outcome of the ping-pong process, as Greenwald had reported, would be immunity being added by the Senate and receiving an up or down vote in the House. With Blue Dogs voting with the GOP, that would make it almost certain that immunity would pass.

Obama Adviser Calls for Retroactive Immunity

Please make this stop. Think Progress reports the bad news:

One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity:

There is this great debate over whether or not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the government after 9/11. I do believe strongly that they should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context, and so I think that’s important. And I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that’s the right thing to do. I do believe the Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately.

This is much, much more offensive than an ad hominem attack on a candidate. Anti-American, anti-Constitution policy positions like this do not belong in the Democratic Party, let alone associated with one of our presidential candidates.

Think Progress notes that this is not where Obama is on retroactive immunity and Obama’s stance is strengthened by receiving the endorsement of Chris Dodd, who has lead the fight against retroactive immunity. It’s safe to say that Obama disagrees with Brennan. But please, can we not find advisers to Democratic leaders that understand the rule of law? And who won’t casually assert that the telecoms “were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context” when it’s just not true?

Plaintiff Speaks on Immunity

Hugh D’Andrade of EFF’s Deeplinks Blog pulls a great quote from Tash Hepting, a plaintiff in a case against AT&T that would be quashed if retroactive immunity becomes law.

In an interview on NPR this morning, he objected to the President’s portrayal of the suits as being led by “trial lawyers” out to hop on some sort of “financial gravy train”.

Frankly I was more than a little insulted by that. I have a very principled stand on this, and a very strong belief about it. It’s not about the money, it’s about wrong and right, it’s about obeying the rule of law and it’s about repercussions when you break the law.

At some point, you would think the President and his anti-Constitution cohort would recognize that people like Hepting care about the outcome of these cases against the big telecoms because we want to see the rule of law upheld in America. This is not a radical notion.

New McCain Ad

Well, that’s a bit different than the usual from John W. McCain’s campaign. The ad makes fairly predictable parallels between McCain and Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt. What’s more odd is that the general feel of the ad is a mix between Carl Sagan shots of the universe and Koyanniqatsi. That leads me to naturally wonder, what sort of hallucinogens does the McCain campaign think we should be taking when we watch this ad?

Here’s a preview of the next McCain ad, featuring “Little Fluffy Clouds” by The Orb, which would be great since McCain is from Arizona.

Interviewer: “What were the skies like when you were young?”
Rickie Lee Jones: “They went on forever – They – When I w- We lived in Arizona, and the skies always had little fluffy clouds in ’em, and, uh… they were long… and clear and… there were lots of stars at night. And, uh, when it would rain, it would all turn – it- They were beautiful, the most beautiful skies as a matter of fact. Um, the sunsets were purple and red and yellow and on fire, and the clouds would catch the colors everywhere. That’s uh, neat cause I used to look at them all the time, when I was little. You don’t see that. You might still see them in the desert.”

Seriously, McCain’s ad people might be high. Someone should check.