Obama: Yay
Clinton: Nay
McCain: No show/no vote
FISA FINAL BILL VOTE:
Obama: Yay
Clinton: Nay
McCain: No show/no vote
Sen. Hillary Clinton's Statement:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ON THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008I'm still voting for Obama, but for all the shit I took on this blog during the primaries, to quote Kathy Griffin: Suck it!
July 9, 2008
One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today's vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.
The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration's surveillance activities. Some of the legislation's provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration's surveillance activities.
While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.
But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.
What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens - and in particular to New Yorkers - all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.
Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used - and used within the law - for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.
Oh yeah, Bob Casey fucking voted Yay on both too. Gee, so glad PA finally got a Dem back in the Senate!
You can see all the votes here.
.
Yes Maria, we all had the audacity of hope.
ReplyDeleteI'm not supporting him and will vote McKane. He, at least, has never fooled me.
Obama arrogantly believes we hate repubs so much we will not desert him.
Well I am. He is a lieing, ass kissing son of a bitch.
I want to add:
ReplyDelete"wait", you say, "don't do that, Obama will change it all after we elect him."
Don't anybody expect me to believe a lier like that will change anything for the better.
John K; I love winning. Let's count our recent victories. 1. Bush gets funding for the Iraqi war thru his admin. 2. McClellan testifies and then disappears from the scene. Can we say no chance of impeachment. and now this. The dumbest President in history, according to the left, cause the left to melt down again. LMAO I love winning.
ReplyDeletei am still voting obama.
ReplyDeletei don't think we can survive maccain. as pissed as i am at this vote, a war with iran and the threat of WWIII is a far worse thing to contemplate.
John K; I love winning.
ReplyDeleteHow does anyone "win" by gutting the Fourth Amendment? This is the typical wingnut mindset: a political victory--even if it's terrible for the country--is a "win".
Shame on Obama and shame on the turncoat Dems in both chambers of Congress who (once again) rolled over liked whipped pups and gave BushCheney everything they wanted.
A special "dishonorable" mention to DINO Senators like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and Jay Rockefeller who not only voted for this abomination, but also voted against the Amendments of Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, and Russ Feingold that would have stripped the telecom immunity sections from the bill. Landrieu, Pryor, and Rockefeller are up for re-election this year which is why the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is not getting a penny from me.
Finally my heartfelt thanks to Senators Dodd, Feingold, and Leahy who led the opposition in the Senate.
BTW Maria,
ReplyDeleteWI second what the General says.
John K: Latest lefty spin, "gutting the 4th ammendment". That is the line the Dailykos has prescribed. It is similar to the line, no sense in offshore drilling, it will take 10 years to get the oil out of the ground. Both total lies and spin. You guys going to join Jesse Jackson and castrate Hussein Obama for his vote.LOL LOL I love winning. LMAO
ReplyDeleteIf the issue here is holding the administration accountable, how does going after the telecommunications companies accomplish that? Look, I was just as upset at the way this stupid administration handled the wiretapping issue and went around the FISA statutes when there was no good reason to. Surveillance is okay with me as long as there is just cause and as long as a court is availalbe to oversee all administration (regardless of which party is in charge) activities.
ReplyDeleteBut going after the telecommunications companies who were ORDERED to do this by the administration is just a pansy-ass way of holding the administration accountable. If the administration broke the law, go after the ADMINISTRATION!
And please, keep finding reasons to not vote for Obama and shout it from the rooftops. Another Republican administration will be so wonderful for us all. Keep sowing the seeds of discontent and playing into Republican and Rovian hands. That's what we've been doing the past 15+ years. Why stop now?
John K: This FISA vote is no different than any other vote the Demcorats have taken under the Bush admin regarding the war on terror. They voted to support the invasion of Iraq and when it backfired they whined. They whined about getting elected to help them pull out of Iraq then funded the war thru the Bush admin.
ReplyDeleteAnd now this FISA bill. Supported by Democrats to include Hussein Obama. Who, of course, is consistent with his previous position of not supporting the bill.
I have told you left wing nut jobs before. You ain't hard to read. You have no problem with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or domestically. You just hate the fact that a Republican is getting the credit for winning it. Your boy Bill Clinton could not stop domestic terrorist attacks. And Bush can. And that is what aggravates you most.
I WIN! Because I know liberals.
i think that i have to agree with anon at 9:24! And please, keep finding reasons to not vote for Obama and shout it from the rooftops. Another Republican administration will be so wonderful for us all. Keep sowing the seeds of discontent and playing into Republican and Rovian hands. That's what we've been doing the past 15+ years. Why stop now?
ReplyDeletedayvoe, maria... can't you guys REQUIRE signatures and not allow anons to post??
there are entirely too many at this point, to keep track.
I am way pissed at Obama and it just goes again to show that the Democrats are a bunch of baby-ass cowards. However, Maria, if -- after that ridiculous Iran vote -- you really believe that had Clinton been the nominee instead of Obama she would have still voted against this bill, then you're delusional.
ReplyDeleteI understand that you are angry your preferred candidate lost. But I don't think anybody can take seriously "suck it" posts from somebody who whole heartedly supported a candidate who regularly engaged in Bush-like saber rattling during the campaign.
There are those who have bought into the Obamamania from the get go, but there are many others who, like me, after watching their campaign performances, thought he was the lesser of two evils and just maybe had the hutzpah (sp?) to deliver some real change.
I still think he can and will win the election, but my confidence that he, like Hillary, will be anything more than just your typical politician who is more worried about securing the office than faithfully executing the responsibilities of the office has been greatly shaken.
I hope your "suck it" post is in some way cathartic, but it rings disingenuous to me.
anon 3:11/3:23: are you and John K. dating? You seem like a perfect e-Harmony match...
dayvoe, maria... can't you guys REQUIRE signatures and not allow anons to post??
ReplyDeletethere are entirely too many at this point, to keep track.
Why do you need to keep track of us. Isn't an attack on an anonymous poster just as much fun?
If you want "friends only" go to My Space.
I suggest keeping track of anon posters should only be allowed if there is judicial oversight.
ReplyDelete"Why do you need to keep track of us. Isn't an attack on an anonymous poster just as much fun?"
ReplyDeleteHey, Einstein, it's so responding commenters can keep track of whom they are responding to. It's hard to put comments in context of personality when you don't know which anonymous is which. News flash: your IP isn't hidden, so it's not like you have real anonymity, anyhow. Why not pick a pseudonym that nobody would associate with you in meatspace? That way'd you be no less anonymous than you are now and we could more easily respond to you. Win-win.
Sen. Obama's vote is disappointing. He got this one wrong.
ReplyDeleteTo Sen. Clinton's credit, she got this one right.
The telecom companies were not ordered to do anything. They were asked. Some complied willingly, such as Verizon, whose general counsel is a Bush pal. Some requested (and received) additional assurances from the government. (Those assurances were the product of a faulty legal progress, and have been disavowed, and do not appear to have been legally sufficient cause to engage in unconstitutional conduct, but those assurances were apparently placed in writing.) At least one company resisted, and appears to have been punished by the government for it.
This episode is one more illustration of how our society's mechanisms become corroded when our leaders are incompetent and misguided. Bush Jr. and his pals were engaged in unconstitutional wrongdoing, but our society gives a president a lot of slack and most people want to belive that their president isn't a hopeless dope bent on un-American activity like spying on its own citizens without a warrant.
The practical course from here is to elect Sen. Obama. That will shed light on the situation, provide an opportunity to improve our laws and -- perhaps most important -- put a better man in position to make the calls for our country.
And for the record, one need not be a lawyer to recognize that John K. couldn't recognize a legitimate constitutional argument if it landed on his nose and started waving at him . . . but it helps.
The key point is: Work for Sen. Obama's election. Our country -- our constitution, our soldiers, our budget, our security, our science, our morality -- can't afford more Bush-Cheney-McCain "leadership."
I hearitly suggest y'all read Gail Collins column in the NYTimes today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html). You may still disagree with Obama after reading it, but you may think differently about whether he reversed himself. By the way, John K is probably right in his comment of 7:08am, to which I add the Cheney line: "So?".
ReplyDeletenot all anon posters are arguing an adverse position to this blog, so no, its not to keep track of the trolls. its simply to keep track for the sake of conversation.
ReplyDeleteand i know that, just as they require us to perform a word verification to comment, they could just as easily require an id. seems kinda' the same/same to me.
*shrug*
Why, Ed, would anybody think differently that he reversed himself after reading that pretty sad-ass column? In addition to her boring writing style (for all of her issues, at least Maureen Dowd still understands that among her tasks as an opinion columnist is to write in an interesting way), she is towing the ol' "compromise" line and that only those in "left field," aka, those dirty fucking hippies, oppose immunity (and expanding warrantless wiretapping powers, lest anybody forget that little gem).
ReplyDeleteSen. Obama said he opposed legislation that granted immunity and would support a filibuster of it, then later reversed course, and said that "national security" trumped being able to sue phone companies and would support the bill.
And Collins even gets the campaign finance thing wrong, because the only thing Sen. Obama committed to was seeking out an agreement with McCain on public financing and minimizing the 527 activity.
If Gail Collins wants to rationalize away the trashing of the Constitution, she's welcome to it. In fact, she can suck it. Gee that felt good.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn McCain thanks you. At this rate, you'll have enough McCain points to have dinner with him at the senior center's cafeteria. You're already half way there because you attended a rally which featured Larry Sinclair.
ReplyDeleteAnd all your cries of sexism from the "blogger boyz" are rendered meaningless by this vulgar post. If I told you to "suck it," you would be having a complete fit at the moment. That you are a hypocrite isn't a surprise. The Clintons and their pathetic hypocrisy rubbed off on you.
By the way, the last time this came up your gal didn't even have the strength to show up to cast a vote. This, a New York Times article and Peter Daou's lame post yesterday show that this is just the Clintons trying to undermine the Democratic Nominee again. Maria, you are merely a pawn to these people...
And you're aiding them in overturning Roe through the election of John McCain. As a pro-life person, I guess I should say thanks for that. As a person who is concerned about the direction of the economy--John McCain's economic honcho just called this a "mental recession of whiners".
But you don't post about that. And the Clinton apparatus, which is headed straight to Fox News, doesn't post about that either. Instead, you all come out of your slumbers to blast Barack Obama. Typical.
For the angry "activists" upset over this, there are probably a few hard realities to face.
ReplyDeleteOne, the lefty blogs(which I frequent) just don't have the power they presume to possess. The party is simply not beholden to you, nor should it be.
Second, you're naive to believe that this is the moment when they started to erode your Constitutional "rights." If they want to take them away they will; ask Japanese-Americans who were interred during WWII or read up on the Alien & Sedition acts, not to mention Lincoln declaring martial law.
Third, you're not consistent. Where were all of you when the DEA was raiding Med. Cannabis dispensaries in California with unsigned warrants??? Why don't you take up the cause of 4th Amendment rights on a local level? Ever have a run-in with a small town, Barney Fife-type? A small town judge and DA? They've been conveniently "neglecting" our 4th Amendment rights for decades.
Fourth, it is a losing issue. You were never, ever going to get what you wanted with a Republican in the White House. And had Hillary been the nominee, she would have made the same politcally calculated vote. Sorry, but I'd rather not knee-cap our nominee by handing the Republicans a national security issue for them to twist and distort against us - which they would - before we even have the chance to change anything. If we don't get a Democratic president, we don't get anything. Thank god our nominee is smart enough to play the game. And if you don't like games in politics and prefer purity, I suggest you go to church.
Fifth, whether you think they should or not, Americans aren't worked up over this. Nor are most Democrats.
Sorry, but the empire is here to stay. I can think of no example from history where a democratic republic successfully restored itself to it's founding principles - not Rome, not Greece and not the USA.
Wake up - our Constitution was trashed a long, long, long time ago...to suggest otherwise is the most arrogant form of naivete; it is pretension on a grand scale.
John K: To whoever said "our constitution was trashed a long time ago" LOL LOL The left has trashed the 1st and 2nd ammendments since 1993. They only whine when they think their rights are being trampled. The left can trample other people's rights but to trample their's..impeach. LMAO I WON BIG !
ReplyDeleteOh, and one more thing: you're really upset that Casey won? You'd rather have Santorum?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is probably yes. Santorum was good for the outrage industry...and therefore good for Maria.
Casey is an excellent United States Senator. Pennsylvania is fortunate to be represented by Bob Casey.
I have to vigorously disagree with you, jaywillie. First, just because there has been a slow erosion of civil rights does NOT mean the Democratic nominee should just go ahead and stuff the thing down the toilet.
ReplyDeleteAnd, second, this whole comment is premised on the idea that had Obama voted against this bill - heck, had he taken a lead in opposing it - this would be a BAD thing. Everybody is so motherfucking scared of the Republicans and right-wing lunatics using this as a "national security issue."
When will Democrats and alleged progressives stop letting the right-wing frame every issue?
John K: See, Jaywillie keep showing his complete lack of any historical knowledge. I think Jaywillie gets most of his historical analogies from Star Wars. Yo, in 1862 Abe Lincoln dispensed with Habeas Corpus along with most of the stuff in the 4th amendment. He instituted a draft along with other restrictions. People called him a tyrant. Now we live in 2008, except for Jaywillie who lives in a universe far, far away, and we have our rights restored. FDR imprisoned Japanese and Wilson imprisoned Germans and Italians. Yet here we are arguing over phone taps. You left wingers either need to get a grip on reality or stop going to the movies. As for you Jaywillie, get out of the Hans Solo costume. LOL LOL LOL I outdid myself on this post. LMAO Me and Bush win!
ReplyDeleteMaria, you and I are on the same side of this one.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the "I told you so," but I warned you about Casey two years ago.
The Democratic Party will be sending John K. into paroxysms of joy for years to come.
I actually wouldn't have put it past Hillary to have voted for the bill had Obama said previously that he would vote against it. That's how cynical I am of Hillary. And as someone said previously in the discussion, Hillary would have probably voted for the bill had she been the presumptive nominee.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: Randi Rhodes was actually OK with Obama voting for it, because, in her words, the authority of the FISA court has been re-established, whereas beforehand its authority had been debased.
Bag,
ReplyDelete"Clintons trying to undermine the Democratic Nominee again..."
Yes, yes, I know the drill, when Hillary gets up in the morning she's doing so simply to undermine Barack. Why can't she just die?
Schmuck,
'Sorry for the "I told you so," but I warned you about Casey two years ago.'
I knew exactly what I was getting with Casey which is why I fought so hard for Chuck Pennacchio, but in the end, I had to vote for Casey just like I'll vote for Obama. (And, no, I don't think and I'm not saying that Obama will be anywhere as bad as Casey is. Barack starts out way ahead all around on the issues than Casey did.)
As lackluster as Bob Casey is, he's an infinitely better representative for this state than Senator Man-on-Dog.
ReplyDeleteSometimes you have to accept something less than what you want in order to stay as far as possible from something you really really REALLY don't want.
you're really upset that Casey won? You'd rather have Santorum?
ReplyDeleteBag, I'm ashamed of you. In the first place, it wasn't Maria who was upset that Casey won. It was I. Maria voted for the schmuck. I voted for Schmuck.
More importantly, the point wasn't that Casey shouldn't beat Santorum, duh. The point was that Santorum's ratings were so low that the Dems could have run the Bag of Health and Politics against him and won in a walk.
But, no-o-o-o-o. They thought that it was better to have a Republican run against a Wingnut. Well, they "won."
Congrats.
Hillary Clinton is a despicable creature who looks like FDR when she stands next to Bob "The USAPATRIOT Act is a vital tool in the war on terror" Casey.
Retired Millhunk-
ReplyDeleteThere is no way a liberal Democrat will ever win a Senate seat in this state. Hell they wouldn't even win the primary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton. But I dislike Bill more. And for the record, I believe Bill is behind this internet relaunch. It has his arrogance, selfishness, and tone deaf old age written all over it. Choose to ignore what the Clintons--especially Bill-- do at your own peril
ReplyDeleteJohn K: You left wingers are in total denial. I mean total. The Demcorats won control of Congress by electing conservative Democrats. Ie Casey. Who opposes abortion. And votes to continue funding the war in Iraq. Altmire also voted to fund the war in Iraq. For some odd reason you left wingers think this congress is a left wing congress. Some of the leaders may be left wing but their rank and file are conservative Democrats. And I would remind you lefties that this congress has given a moderate Republican everything he asked for. Which suits me just fine. I WIN! Shitrock loses!
ReplyDelete