Blasphemy

First thing’s first: The Republicans are wrong about off-shore drilling. It’s just another kowtow to the oil companies that control them, and it will produce little to no oil for years to come, not to mention that fact that it just furthers our addiction. There, now that’s out of the way.

I also recognize that yesterday’s Republican protest on the House floor was nothing but a political stunt designed to win points and get people like me buzzing about it.

Well, it worked.

If you haven’t heard, yesterday Nancy Pelosi successfully adjourned the House for a five-week vacation without allowing a vote on offshore drilling. In response, the Republicans refused to leave the floor, staying instead to give rousing speeches in the dark, without microphones, and only to the 30 or so members of the public in the gallery, since CSPAN turns its cameras off when the House is adjourned. Kudos to Rep. John Culberson of Texas, who used Twitter and Qik to post instant updates.

Go ahead, click the link and read the whole Politico post. I promise you won’t be able to get through the whole thing without smiling at least a little. And that’s my point.

The Republicans managed to inspire me on an issue I completely disagree with them about. Can you imagine Congressional Democrats doing that? Of course you can’t. If you could, we would have seen evidence of it in the past two years.

But instead all we’ve gotten is a half-hearted attempt to seem like they’ve accomplished everything (or at least anything) they’ve said they’re going to accomplish.

Speaker Pelosi gets to hide behind the fact that the Senate is holding everything up due to the 60-vote cloture rule. But where is the attempt to rally the American people behind these bills? Where was the response to the talk radio condemnation of immigration reform last summer, which got so many people to call their Senators that it jammed the Senate switchboard and scared Members into voting against it?

We haven’t had that kind of movement surrounding any issue, and Nancy Pelosi is as much to blame for that as Harry Reid, who, well, I’ve dealt with his lack of energy on this blog before. And when he dared Senate Republicans to give up their break to debate the energy crisis, they may not have taken him up on it, but the House Republicans sure did; several of them turned around from their trips home to give speeches during the protest.

In contrast, the only thing we’ve had to be excited about in the last two years is a guy who is currently tied with John McCain when he should be ten points ahead (more on that in a future post).

So congratulations to the House Republicans, who managed to stand up for something they believe in, rather than sitting around hoping an election will fix everything.

Harry Reid has all the energy of a sloth covered in molasses

Here is the most boring interview in the history of ever:

Notice how Senator Reid doesn't say a word for the first minute and eight seconds.

If I didn't know any better, I would think that this is the reason why nothing has gotten done in the Senate since the Democrats took the majority.

I really hope we get a nominee soon so we can stop having this nonsense as the face of our party. It's impossible to get excited about that.

Telecom Immunity, Round II

I'll heed Markus's call and take this opportunity to pen an update on the prospect that our Congressional Democrats will sell out the judicial process in exchange for some campaign contributions and Feeling Important. The large media coverage of this whole travesty has been pretty close to zilch, so I've been getting most of my information from Glenn Greenwald and TPMMuckraker. For starters, let's just look at what Reid said on the floor of the Senate the other day:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

Normally I would be over-joyed to have Reid say something like that, because it's exactly what progressive Dems have been asking him to do pretty much since the beginning of this Congressional term. But up until now, Reid has been either 1) too a-scared that people would think bad things about him, or 2) too a-scared that his Republican pals would snub him at the lunch table in the Senate cafeteria. 

And now here's Chris Dodd--probably, at this point, the Senator I respect most--and Reid has chosen this moment to stand up for majority rule. And that's not all. Glenn Greenwald:

As I noted in my post yesterday, Reid had the audacity to send his spokesman, Jim Manley, to falsely claim to the New York Times that "Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill" -- even though the exact opposite is true. Reid is engaged in at least as much maneuvering to ensure that Bush and Cheney get what they want here as McConnell would be willing to do if he were the Majority Leader.

Go to Greenwald's site to read the transcript of an obviously-scripted exchange (one might say collusion) between Reid and his ostensible adversary Mitch McConnell. 

And just today, this:

Ending months of resistance, the White House has agreed to give House members access to secret documents about its warrantless wiretapping program, a congressional official said Thursday.

The Bush administration is trying to convince the House to protect from civil lawsuits the telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without the approval of a court. Congress created the court 30 years ago to oversee such activities.

House Intelligence and Judiciary committee members and staff will begin reading the documents at the White House Thursday, said an aide to Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

On the surface this seems fine, of course, but we should know from experience by now that we can't count on the Bush administration to turn over any truly incriminating documents; more likely they 'recycled' them, "consistent with industry best practices," but inconsistent with the law. And this disclosure is part of a deal--at least the appearance of Congressional oversight in exchange for votes on immunity. 

When this, or some other less clearly ludicrous but equally effective form of immunity passes the Congress, it's going to be a sad day. I agree with what seems to be a widespread sentiment: we need more and better Democrats. And I think that 'better' should probably come before 'more.'  No one should be afraid of primary challenges.

Reid pulls FISA Legislation

Reid pulled the FISA bill containing telecom immunity until after the break. Bravo to Dodd, Kennedy, Feingold, and others who fought to keep this from passing. There'll be more fights on this ahead.

There's plenty of time between now and then to let our Senators know how we feel on this issue. 

Reid fails to oppose telecom immunity; Dodd to filibuster

Here's a wonderful example of leadership from Senator Reid:

I have determined that in this situation, it would be wrong of me to simply choose one committee’s bill over the other. I personally favor many of the additional protections included in the Judiciary Committee bill, and I oppose the concept of retroactive immunity in the Intelligence bill. But I cannot ignore the fact that the Intelligence bill was reported favorably by a vote of 13-2, with most Democrats on the committee supporting that approach. I explored the possibility of putting before the Senate a bill that included elements of both two committee bills. Earlier this week, I used Senate Rule 14 to place two bills on the calendar.

The first – S. 2440 – consists of Titles I and III of the Intelligence bill, but did not include Title II on retroactive immunity. The second bill – S. 2441 – consists of Title I of the Intelligence bill and Titles II and III of the Judiciary bill. But after consulting further with Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Leahy, a consensus emerged among the three of us that the best way to proceed would be by regular order. Both Chairmen agreed with this approach.

Under regular order, and the rules of the Senate governing sequential referral, I will move to proceed to S. 2248 – the bill reported by each committee. When that motion to proceed is adopted, the work of both committees will be before the Senate. Because of the order in which they considered the bill, the Intelligence Committee version will be the base text, and the Judiciary Committee version will be automatically pending as a substitute amendment.

What this means, in effect, is that getting rid of the telecom immunity in the Intelligence Committee bill will require sixty votes, "rendering," as Glenn Greenwald explains, "such efforts virtually impossible. In doing so, Reid is brazenly ignoring the demands of 14 Senators -- including all of the Democratic presidential candidates -- to have the Judiciary Committee bill be the base bill."

That's bad enough, but the explanation Reid is giving makes me angry. "The Intelligence Committee submitted their bill first, so we will consider theirs first."--pretty transparent BS, I have to say. I'm sure there are very good reasons for Reid's failure to oppose telecom immunity, such as, say, keeping in the good graces of powerful people like the telecoms and his old chum Senator Rockefeller, but the Majority Leader has power that is meant to be exercised in just such instances as this, where it is obvious that some Senators are working against the interests of their constituency, and where those Senators are clearly wrong.

Apparently Senator Leahy has also decided not to exercise his full clout; Reid says that Leahy agreed to have his bill (the one without immunity, and with better safeguards on domestic spying) plowed under.

Not only has Reid taken this action, but he also, in defiance of Senate custom, refused to recognize the hold Senator Dodd (a member of his own party) placed on the bill. When Tom Coburn placed a hold on a civil rights bill, Reid honored it.

As a result of all this, Chris Dodd is going to have to stand up and filibuster in support of the Constitution and in defiance of his own supposed allies. What in the world is the matter with our party?

Here's Chris Dodd's page on the filibuster.

Update: I'm watching C-Span on my computer, and Ted Kennedy just gave a corker of a speech. I'll try and find a clip of it and put it up.

Update II: Kit Bond says that the President does have the "inherent authority" under Article II of the Constitution to "conduct warrantless surveillance." Let me just take a look at Article II.. okay, yeah, I don't see it anywhere. How can Bond make an argument like that with a straight face?

Update III: Here's part of the Kennedy speech. (Embed fixed. --markus)

How we ended up with the Republicans' FISA bill

Everybody pretty much guessed that the White House put out a bunch of really scary, frightening 'intelligence' to try and manipulate the Democrats who are still (ridiculously) afraid that if they don't give the White House unlimited power, they'll be blamed for a future terrorist attack.

Today's NY Times article confirms that that's what happened:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 — At a closed-door briefing in mid-July, senior intelligence officials startled lawmakers with some troubling news. American eavesdroppers were collecting just 25 percent of the foreign-based communications they had been receiving a few months earlier.

Congress needed to act quickly, intelligence officials said, to repair a dangerous situation.

Some lawmakers were alarmed. Others, jaded by past intelligence warnings, were skeptical.

The report helped set off a furious legislative rush last week that, improbably, broadened the administration’s authority to wiretap terrorism suspects without court oversight.

...

“There was an intentional manipulation of the facts to get this legislation through,” said Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a Democrat on the Intelligence Committee who voted against the plan.

The White House, Mr. Feingold said Friday in an interview, “has identified the one major remaining weakness in the Democratic Party, and that’s its unwillingness to stand up to the administration when it’s making a power grab regarding terrorism and national security.”

...

Democratic leaders did not demand that the security agency seek individual court warrants for eavesdropping. But they did want the court to review and approve the agency procedures soon after surveillance began.

The administration, however, wanted the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to approve the surveillance, with the court weighing in just to certify that no abuses occurred, and only long after the surveillance had been conducted.

The talks intensified in the days before the recess last weekend, highlighted by proposals and counterproposals in calls between Mr. McConnell and the Democratic leadership.

By Aug. 2, the two sides seemed relatively close to a deal. Mr. McConnell had agreed to some increased role for the secret court, a step that the administration considered a major concession, the White House and Congressional leaders said.

But that night, the talks broke down. With time running out, the Senate approved a Republican bill that omitted the stronger court oversight. The next day, the House passed the bill.

If the White House was really so concerned about this gap in the FISA law, they should've been sharing this intelligence consistently instead of doling it out in driblets, and only the bits likely to get the Democrats to do what they want. Any Democrat in Congress who honestly thinks that this was an emergency that just happened to come up right before the August recess doesn't deserve to be in the Congress.

It isn't the Democrats that were endangering national security, it was Republicans who were willing to risk the non-passage of changes to the FISA bill that both sides agreed were necessary, for the sake of grabbing more power for the President.

And tell me, how in the hell did these Democrats decide that it was a good idea to give oversight privileges to Alberto Gonzales, instead of a court?

The Democrats that voted to continue Bush's reign of fear were played for fools. And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid showed a distinct lack of leadership. If they'd wanted to, they could've stopped this; but obviously the continuing erosion of our Constitutional rights wasn't a big enough deal to inconvenience anyone with.

Gyah.

Obstruction in the Senate

Via Open Left, here's a partial list of acts of Congress that the Republicans have killed with 'intent to filibuster':

 

January 17, Reid Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007: a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process.

January 24, Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007: a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

February 5, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq.

February 17, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq (again).

April 17, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007: an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

April 18, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007: a bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

June 11, No confidence vote on Alberto Gonzales: a joint resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people.

June 21, Baucus Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act of 2007: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for energy advancement and investment, and for other purposes.

June 26, Employee Free Choice Act of 2007: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

July 11, Webb Amendment to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008: to specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.]

I knew that Republicans were obstructing things with filibuster threats, but seeing it all together like this really drives it home. And even though Republicans are doing this all the time, most people don't know about it. What they see is a Democratic majority that can't seem to pass anything. So I'll join with the growing chorus of lefty bloggers and say that the Dems need to make them actually filibuster. Have them start reading from phonebooks. Pull out the cots and diapers. Then it'll be obvious to the American public who is really holding up the people's business in the Senate.

Some of these are so popular with the public that it really boggles the mind: can you imagine the reaction if there were images of the Republicans on the floor of the Senate filibustering a bill to raise the minimum wage? Or to block the no-confidence vote on Gonzales? But instead fake 'collegiality' got everyone convinced that it simply takes 60 votes to pass something in the Senate. No, it takes 51. Anything else is obstructing the will of the majority.

Now it looks like the Democratic leadership has finally got the message. Harry Reid announced that unless Republicans allow a vote on the Reed-Levin Amendment before Tuesday night, they are going to be filibustering (for real):

Reid will be using the provision of Rule 22 that allows for up to 30 hours of continuous debate once it's made clear -- in this case, by Republicans trying to avoid an up-or-down vote on Reed-Levin -- that there is a desire to continue debating the issue.

In other words, the Majority Leader is saying "You want to debate? We'll stay all night and debate."

"I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down," said Reid this afternoon. "If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it."

Reid could hold the Senate in continuous session overnight Tuesday and into midday Wednesday unless Republicans agree to a simple-majority vote on Reed-Levin.

Senate Democrats will then be prepared to take to the floor and speak all night and, if their Republican colleagues do not remain in the chamber, invoke ongoing quorum calls and other procedural maneuvers to force GOP members back to the Senate floor.

With the whole specter of cots being dragged into Senate cloakrooms and the pure theatrics involved, I'm hopeful this will shine a white-hot spotlight on the Senate's Republican leadership and show Americans how the GOP doesn't truly support helping troops and their families at home or extricating them from pointless involvement in the Iraqi civil war.

It'll be interesting to see how the MSM spins this, but however they spin it, I think that most people will know what's really going on.

The Reid Disconnect

Many people seem concerned about Harry Reid's recent observation that the war in Iraq is lost -- from Tom DeLay, who's carping about "treason", all the way over to my good friend Jess Coggins, who is "not sure this is a good political strategy". David Broder (a man whose judgment we all respect so very much) called Reid an "embarrassment", Joe Lieberman said exactly what you expect, and BLAH BLAH BLAH into that familiar media steam cycle that happens whenever anybody says anything provocative -- Drudge headlines it, Rush and O'Reilly blow some gaskets, within a day Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the mainstream media dutifully report on the "controversy," and so on into infinity until we meet our next patsy (Sean Penn?). We know the drill. It's a GAFFE, gentlemen! Put on your GAFFE MASKS!

(Note for clarity: this cycle applies when conservatives say dumb things too. Just replace "Drudge" with "Media Matters," "Rush and O'Reilly" with "Daily Kos diarists," and "the mainstream media" with "nobody.")

But the noteworthy thing in this case is how the left responded. The normal procedure says that "respectable" Democrats go on a talk show and politely distance themselves, while embarrassed liberal bloggers sit in stony silence as they wait for the stupidity to clear, or at most point out that Sean Penn does not actually speak for us. (Surprise!) This case: totally different.

The blogs have been lit up, especially Daily Kos, with passionate defenses of Reid -- many of them coming from soldiers through groups like VoteVets. Diarists (always a better gauge of general sentiment than the front-pagers) have called it "speaking truth to power", "clear and consistent", and "stating the obvious". And while Reid's Senate colleagues have been more careful, we haven't seen the usual volume of condemnation; save one article shit out by the Politico and dutifully linked by Drudge, there's been basically none of the "flustered Democrats reject comments" stories you normally see. Jon Stewart described it well last night as Democrats' "creepy, creepy solidarity".

My God, if Reid or Daschle or Dick Durbin or anybody had said this two or three years ago, they'd have been lynched. Boom. Career over. Yet this time around, in progressive politics there's a tacit acceptance of the remarks (by the insane political-kabuki standards of the Beltway press corps, at least). Why is the left so unconcerned about Reid's admittedly inflammatory contention that the war is lost? Could it be because... no, I can't say it... stop yourself, Kolic...

BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.

Holy hell, people, think about it! We clearly have not won, and will not win, this war. Any ounce of military or geopolitical common sense tells you that; at this point it's a walking definition of "unwinnable." Ergo -- and follow me closely here, I'm using Harvard-caliber logic -- if we cannot win, we lose. Sucks to be us.

This explains the reaction I'm talking about. Progressives like truth. We like science, and logic, and the reality-based community. We have a very hard time letting go of it, and we naturally want to stick up for it, even if that truth hurts sometimes (see: global warming). I certainly think this way; when Reid first made his remark, my reaction was "what else is new?". It's just common sense.

Whereas conservatives have never been friends with truth. They see it as an enemy and prefer to defeat it. Lying, misdirection, total cuckoo-bananas denial: all of these things are perfectly acceptable so long as they serve the right goals. (See: everything the Bush administration has ever done. Seriously, think about it.) It's a perfectly understandable consequence of their ideology, which holds that ideas supersede context, and thus that belief supersedes reality.

And that's the fundamental disconnect. The right wing and its enablers are upset because Democrats are being honest. Damn liberals are letting reality win! For our part, progressives seem to be sick and tired of playing the game on conservative terms, and we're gonna stick up for the truth when Harry Reid says it, no matter how bluntly. This is a positive trend and should be encouraged.

Because after all, the war in Iraq may be lost, but the conservative war on reality is still going strong. And that's one conflict in which we should all be firmly defeatist.