The Center for American Progress (viz. Think Progress) seldom, if ever, weighs in heavily against one of the Democratic presidential candidates. I’ve heard a few pundits critically comment that it leans towards Hillary Clinton, but I have personally seen no evidence of any substantive bias towards Obama or Clinton. McCain, of course is a different story. They routinely bash him, but now they’re bashing Clinton and McCain over their "destructive nuttiness."
[...] Economic analysts of all stripes have responded with horror, pointing out that "the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers." Even if a suspension of the gas tax led to lower prices, the rich would benefit the most, since "the more a family earns, the more they drive," notes Sam Davis of the Center for American Progress. Len Burman of the non partisan Urban Institute calls the proposal "a huge windfall for refiners." New York Times columnist Tom Friedman argues, "This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks." Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter agrees, stating, "Suspending the federal gas tax is a crass ploy for votes." The Atlantic Monthly’s James Fallows calls cutting the gas tax "destructive nuttiness" and "embarrassing." Economist Gilbert Metcalf called it "very short-sighted," noting, "If we want people to invest in energy-saving cars, we need some assurance that the higher price paid for these cars is going to pay off through fuel savings."
Too many spam bots, etc. I just now saw this. Not sure what it all means yet, but the good news is (or seems to be on a cursory basis), the House did not kowtow to C-Plus Augustus on this round of the FISA bill.
Things may change this afternoon, but…
After its first secret session in a quarter-century, the House on Friday rejected retroactive immunity for the phone companies that took part in the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks, and it voted to place greater restrictions on the government’s wiretapping powers.
The decision, by a largely party-line vote of 221 to 188, is one of the few times when Democrats have been willing to buck up against the White House on a national security issue. It also ensures that the months-long battle over the government’s wiretapping powers will drag on for at least a few more weeks and possibly much longer.
After a lengthy debate on the budget, the House has moved on to debating FISA, but have not voted yet.
The Decider began the day properly on the South Lawn and delivered his standard dose of fear-mongering before any FISA-related activity. The President graciously and with all due respect, informed the People that House leaders dumped the bill he keeps demanding and instead, “they introduced a partisan bill that would undermine America’s security.”
When asked about the President’s kind and noble accusations, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi responded with a Pinocchio lesson.
A: Speaker Pelosi: “That’s the same question I got in 2001 when they asked me when I said ‘the intelligence on Iraq does not support the threat, of an imminent threat, to our country’ that the Administration is contending…I said then, and I say now, I am stating a fact. The President is wrong and he knows it.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn gave the President these little nuggets of truth and wisdom.
Hoyer:
The White House insistence that Congress provide telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s surveillance program with blanket immunity is neither justified nor in keeping with our nation’s legal tradition. In essence, the President is asking Congress to immunize companies for their conduct – despite the fact that Congress is not sure what conduct it would be immunizing, and despite the fact that serious questions have been raised about the legality of the surveillance program. Congress owes the American people more than blind obeisance to the Executive Branch.
Clyburn:
The absurd and outrageous allegations made by President Bush this morning that FISA legislation being considered in the House would make America less safe are false and misleading.
The FISA legislation being debated in the House this week would upgrade our intelligence surveillance capabilities while at the same time protecting core constitutional freedoms that all Americans value and cherish….I encourage the President to stop the scare tactics and work with Congress on legislation that improves our national security and moves our country in a New Direction.
Just before submitting this post, their is some argument debate between Democratic Representatives and House Minority Whip Roy Blunt over going into an unplanned secret session for further debate. Some of the Dems are questioning the intent and purpose of the secret session — they clearly think someone is trying to pull a fast one over them. That’s all I know at this point. Who know what kind of hi jinks may be occurring, or maybe its legit???
First, Politico reports the House will vote on the new FISA bill Thursday. I have some important stuff from Jane Hamsher et al. related to voting on the bill, but I’ll cover that in a moment.
As you know, just before the recess in mid-February, the House rebuked George Bush’s demand to pass the Senate’s version of the bill (S. 2248: FISA Amendments Act) which provided amnesty for the telecoms. As a result, the extant FISA legislation expired, and the House members have been in conference since then working on a revised bill.
There has been a lot of speculation on which way the House would go — (1) let Blue Dog Democrats and the Terrorepublicans take the lead and give immunity to the telecoms (and indirectly the administration); or, (2) submit a bill, in some form, that hopefully would not let the telecoms get away with breaking the law. The latter would be an uphill climb because the Blue Dog Democrats are water carriers for Bush.
It appears the House has prepared a bill that sorta, kinda addresses the amnesty matter, but getting it past the vote Thursday with all the right pieces intact is iffy. A senior House aide stepped Paul Kiel through the proposed bill recently. This is an excerpt of Paul’s report on the structure and mechanics of the bill.
The House leadership’s draft proposal for a surveillance bill contains a provision that would reject giving retroactive immunity to the telecoms. Instead, it would give the courts authorization to hear the classified material at issue in the case — in essence disposing with the administration’s claim of the state secrets privilege.
here’s how that telecom suit provision would work. The lawsuits against the telecoms for participation in the warrantless wiretapping program are currently tied up in court because the government has asserted the state secrets privilege. It’s a state of affairs that the telecoms themselves are not happy with, as Wayne Watts, AT&T’s general counsel, wrote in a letter to lawmakers last October:
"When the subject matter of the litigation involves allegations of highly classified intelligence activities, private parties are disabled from making the factual showing necessary to demonstrate that the cases lack legal merit. If the courts do not swiftly dismiss such cases based on the state secrets privilege, then carriers who are alleged to have cooperated with intelligence activities are faced with years of litigation, at great financial and reputation cost, and are forced to remain mute in the face of extreme allegations, no matter how false."
The House bill seeks to solve this problem by giving the judges hearing these cases authorization to view the classified documents at issue in the case. Here, those would be the orders from the president claiming that the warrantless wiretaps were legal.
So, the House is trying to let the courts decide whether people broke the law or violated the Constitution, which is what the courts are supposed to do, but as I said, getting the bill passed is another matter.
I received an email from Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald today outlining some of their thoughts, efforts, and plans related to the FISA vote. A major emphasis is to hold Representatives accountable for their votes. Kick them out office if they kowtow to Bush. They wrote:
At this point it seems that all is lost on FISA. It looks like in the process of negotiating a compromise with the Senate, the House will be forced to have an up-or-down vote on retroactive immunity. We shouldn’t expect that vote to go our way.
But rather than getting mad while we watch the Fourth Amendment go up in flames, we’re going to start getting even.
We’ve picked out some of most reactionary Democrats, and are turning it over to progressive activists like you to decide who the worst offenders are. We’ll then run ads and robo-calls in their congressional districts to let their constituents know how poorly their Representative is representing their rights.
We’re starting our effort to get even on several of the Blue Dog Democrats: John Barrow (GA-12), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Chris Carney (PA-10), Brad Ellworth (IN-8), Zack Space (OH-18), and Heath Shuler (NC-11). This pack of conservatives may caucus the right way, but they actively work to undermine progressive values, including sending a letter to Speaker Pelosi last week encouraging her to grant the telecom companies retroactive immunity.
Since the final votes haven’t been cast yet on FISA, hopefully we can shame some of them into righting their moral compass and voting against retroactive immunity. If not, we’ll make sure that each one of their constituents knows about it.
Hopefully when it comes down to the wire, things will go our way, and the House Democrats will stand up for the rule of law. In the meantime, however, we would be naive not to start taking action to hold them accountable if they don’t.
I hope you will take the actions Jane and Glenn requested. This is far too important to let simply slide by.
The terrorists invaded the Heritage Foundation’s spelling checker. Notice how they spelled “extension” on their FISA Overtime Clock. (Prior clock was countdown to expiration, this is post-expiration.)
The Right-Wing Fear-Mongers at the Heritage Foundation have a FISA countdown clock posted on the front page of their web site (h/t - Glenn Greenwald) to ensure everyone knows the precise moment when the Islamic Democracy and Freedom Haters will invade us, killing every man, woman and child.
So, if you want to watch that three-day video you rented or call Grandma before the Freedom Haters invade us and aren’t sure how much time you have left, just check the their site.
I am so relieved, because I mistakenly thought it was set to expire last night. Imagine how surprised I was when I woke up this morning, not dead, and heard our beloved President dishing out another dose (fourth day in a row) of fear-mongering and lies.
Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.
No, Mr. Bush, has it wrong. Congress offered to enact a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act and he refused to sign it. Therefore, by default it is clearly his fault the law will expire. Very simple. Furthermore, as stated countless times, intelligence agencies will be able to collect whatever intelligence they need. If they stop collecting intelligence it will simply be because they or Mr. Bush choose not to, rather than any legislative limitation or obstacle.
Rep. Rush Holt succinctly explains the serious consequences of acquiescing to the fear-mongering demands of George Bush and the GOP Members of Congress to implement the FISA bill passed by the Senate yesterday (S. 2248).
I’m sure Rep. Holt will be faced with incredible retribution from the White House, the Terrorepublicans in Congress, the Sellout Democrats, and various administration agencies.
God knows, John Boehner may even breakdown and weep (again) over the shame and disgrace Rep. Holt has brought upon this country by defying the total authoritarian rule of George W. Bush.
The GOP spin machine is in full force with its fear-mongering trying to convince Americans they will die if Congress does not pass the FISA bill the President wants before the extensions to FISA expire this week. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s all grandstanding to insure Congress grants amnesty to the telecoms, and inherently to the Bush administration, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has called the President’s bluff (for now).
The extension to the FISA bill is the Protect America Act, which allows the administration to do anything it wants and circumvents judicial review of illegal wiretapping.
Details on Pelosi’s rebuttal in a moment, but first…
If we are to believe the fear-mongering president’s assertions (and that’s all they are) made yesterday and today, then we are in imminent danger of annihilation and the telecoms are included unless they’ve found a way to operate without people or facilities. Therefore, how can Bush make the argument that he won’t accept legislation that protects all of the people as provided for in the RESTORE Act?
And what evidence has Bush provided to support all the BS in his recent statements that the intelligence agencies are just going to halt and not be able to monitor terrorists? None. Not one single piece.
At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison. To carry out their plans, they must communicate with each other, they must recruit operatives, and they must share information.
The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor these communications. Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they’re planning.
To help our intelligence agencies do this, Congress passed the Protect America Act last year. Unfortunately, Congress set the law to expire on February 1st — and then failed to pass new legislation that would keep these tools in effect over the long run. …
The House’s failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens. As Director McConnell has told me, without this law, our ability to prevent new attacks will be weakened. And it will become harder for us to uncover terrorist plots.
This Saturday at midnight, legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised. It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen….
The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk….
Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable. The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill….
The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor terrorist communications. Our intelligence professionals are working day and night to keep us safe, and they’re waiting to see whether Congress will give them the tools they need to succeed or tie their hands by failing to act.
Bush is just flat out lying. Furthermore, if he is so concerned about the safety of Americans then why did he refuse to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee’s bill, which gave the intelligence agencies everything they need, but did not grant amnesty to the telecoms. I know I’ve said this repeatedly, but where is the logic in putting the priority of corporations over citizens?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi obviously anticipated the showdown that is taking place in Congress today as evidenced by her remarks published at The Gavel yesterday. She has put Bush on notice, using facts, not bullshit.
On Friday, a surveillance law insisted upon by the President last August will expire. Today, an overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted to extend that law for three weeks so that agreement could be reached with the Senate on a better version of that law. The President and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national consequences result.
However, even if the Protect America Act expires later this week, the American people can be confident that our country remains safe and strong. Every order entered under the law can remain in effect for 12 months from the date it was issued.
Furthermore, the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies. Unlike last August, the FISA court has no backlog of cases, and thus can issue necessary court orders for surveillance immediately.
House Republicans Thursday left the chamber ahead of a vote seeking to hold White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before a panel investigating the firing of several United States attorneys.
The move was intended to show that Republicans want to work on a permanent update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act rather than be part of a “partisan fishing expedition,” as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) put it.
The rhetoric over granting amnesty to the telecom companies yesterday is intense to say the least. And I for the most part, side with those that are mad as hell with the Sellout Democrats. That notwithstanding, Atrios makes a notable point about the Sellout Democrats and their motives.
While one can’t discount legalized bribery campaign dollars entirely, I do think too often we assume they’re the reason lawmakers do the “wrong thing” when the simpler explanation that they believe the wrong thing is in fact the right thing is the answer.
Too many Democrats simply don’t have the values we imagine they do, and it lets them off the hook too much to assume they’re simply craven people who need to get re-elected instead of bad people who don’t share our values.
I must agree that not every Member of Congress is on the take, and as evidenced yesterday nothing could be further from the truth that too many Democrats don’t share our values. And as an aside, I must say I have grown to despise the word values when put in context with politics. The neocons tout it ad nauseam as if they are the Chosen Few, the Righteous, the Anointed, and have a patent on values. But for the sake of brevity, values will serve this specific purpose.
With respect to Atrios posit, I believe it’s fair to say we have a substantial number of brainwashed Democrats in Washington that need their reset button pushed and if that does not work, their constituents need to get out the hook. But what is the default state the Sellout Democrats should return to when the button is pushed? More importantly, how or why did they diss their constituents and the majority of Americans?
The problem seems to be manifested when a politician becomes a Washington Insider. But what is a Washington Insider?
The term is not in a standard dictionary such as Webster, and if you Google it, you get a long list of publications and people described as an Insider. I’m sure many would disagree, but my perception or definition of an Insider, in simple terms, is a long-time Washington politician or lobbyist, who is familiar with and has the ability to maneuver and/or manipulate the Washington-based political system
Dick Cheney is an incredible example of a well-seasoned Insider. Pulling the levers of Washington is arguably Cheney’s greatest skill. His proficiency is so great it is equaled only by the danger that accompanies his lever-pulling.
Slapping a picture of Cheney in this post with a big red arrow pointing to it and an accompanying caption of “What’s wrong with the the Democrats” would probably suffice at a basic level, but that borders too closely with fear-mongering. And I should add that Republicans can be easily interchanged with Democrats in the caption.
Atrios provides a good basic description of what is problematic with many of the Sellout Democrats, however, Barack Obama, in his book Audacity of Hope, provides an excellent illustration of Sellout Democrats and the Washington Insiders.
[Traditional aka Barry Goldwater] Republicans are not the ones who have driven the debate over the past six years. Instead of the “compassionate conservatism” that George Bush promised in his 2000 campaign, what has characterized the ideological core of today’s GOP is absolutism…There is absolutism of the free market, an ideology of no taxes, no regulation, no safety net — indeed, no government beyond what’s required to protect private property and provide for the national defense.
There’s the religious absolutism of the Christian right…that insists not only that Christianity is America’s dominant faith, but that a particular brand of that faith should drive public policy, overriding any alternative source of understanding, whether the writings of liberal theologians, the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, or the words of Thomas Jefferson.
And there is the absolute belief in the authority of the majority will, or at least those who claim power in the name of those in the majority—a disdain for those institutional checks (the courts, the Constitution, the press, the Geneva Conventions, the rules of the Senate, or the traditions governing redistricting) that might slow our inexorable march toward the New Jerusalem.
Of course, there are those within the Democratic Party who tend toward similar zealotry. But those who do have never come close to possessing the power of a Rove or a DeLay, the power to take over a party, fill it with loyalists, and enshrine some of their radical ideas into law. The prevalence of regional, ethnic and economic differences within the party, the electoral map and the structure of the Senate, the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections—all these things tend to prevent those Democrats in office from straying too far from the center…
Instead, we Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of the energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated city. Others pursue a more “centrist” approach, figuring that as long as they split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be acting reasonably—and failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up more and more ground.
Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction….We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.
And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics. The accepted wisdom [of Democratic activists] goes something like this: The Republican Party has ben able to constantly win elections not by expanding its base but vilifying Democrats, driving wedges into the electorate, energizing its right wing, and disciplining those who stray from the party line. If the Democrats ever want to get back into power, then they will have to take the same approach.
[Ultimately any attempt] by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in…Whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose.For it’s precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. [1]
(Emphasis added.)
Prescient.
Yesterday (and many months before), when the Sellout Democrats caved in to the Republicans’ and George Bush’s demands on FISA, they could not have provided a more pristine illustration of executing Democratic accepted wisdom — modeling themselves after Republicans, pursuing rigid orthodoxy and ideological purity. They were terrorized by the prospect of the illegitimate and thundering criticism from the GOP that might cost them votes.
There was no Democratic leadership that possessed authority and represented its party or the people. Harry Reid failed miserably as a leader on multiple accounts. He exaggerated his cause with idle threats and was summarily dismissed. In conferencing, he fell in lock-step with the Republicans, while publicly thumping his chest in defiance of the Republicans. His singular achievement was to make a fool of himself. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold tried their best to lead, with Sheldon Whitehouse following close behind, but without the requisite authority their efforts were handicapped.
The Sellout Democrats, and thereby the Democratic Party will achieve little at best until they cease modeling themselves after George Bush Republicans and their lawbreaking compadres.
[1] Obama, B., (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream (pp. 37-40). New York: Crown Publishers.
Is Harry Reid nominated for an Oscar? If not he should be.
Check out this picture of Harry Reid in the Times today standing before reporters after the FISA votes yesterday. He appears to be so despondent and contemplative, especially considering this caption: “Holding all the Democrats together on this,” Senator Harry Reid said of the FISA bill, “is not something that’s doable.”
The quote and the forlorn look is a bunch of crap.
Reid did everything possible to ensure the Senate Intelligence Committee’s version of the FISA bill (S. 2248 Amendment) made it to the floor rather than the Judiciary Committee’s version (H.R. 3773 RESTORE Act), which did not provide amnesty. And that’s just one example of the Majority Leader’s maneuvers to ensure the lawbreakers got precisely what they wanted.
Of course, the $33,500 Reid received in contributions from the telecommunications and Internet industries during the 2006 and 2008 cycles have nothing to do with his decisions. And especially considering the fact that 91%, or $30,500 was received during the 2008 cycle.
And while were looking at Reid’s contributions, things sure have improved since Reid became Majority Leader. In the 2005-2006 cycle, Reid received $101,100 from all PACS. But in the 2007-2008 cycle, Reid has received $675,785 from all PACS, and there are 11 months remaining in this year. That’s a whopping 568% increase in PAC contributions!
I actually like the idea of a unitary executive, because it implies that there could be a unitary citizen. I have begun to consider myself a unitary citizen. I am allowed (by virtue of the definition of a unitary executive) to pick and choose the laws I would like to follow, kind of Thoreau like.
I also like the idea of retroactive immunity paired with the unitary citizen. I could decide not to follow a stupid law and then forgive myself afterwards.
Far too many in Congress are heavy on rhetoric and light — to put it mildly — on action. Sen Chris Dodd (D-CT) cannot be characterized as such. He has fought giving amnesty to Bush and his band of crooks through every step of the FISA revision process.
In spite of the heavy losses suffered today, Dodd intends to launch a counterattack to the extent possible, albeit against virtually all odds.
The following is from a press conference Dodd had with reporters today. TPM has the full story.
“We’ve lost every single battle we had on this bill [in the Senate]…. We’re not getting anywhere at all” he said. “The question now is can the House do better.” After the bill passes in the Senate, as is expected late today or tomorrow, the bill would head to a conference. There, conferees from both houses will try to hash out the significant differences between the House and Senate versions, the issue of retroactive immunity chief among them.
However, Dodd said, if the final bill emerging from that powwow does contain retroactive immunity, he said he’d “absolutely” filibuster that bill; he’d use “whatever vehicles we can” to stop it.
The Senate had “just sanctioned” the “single largest invasion of privacy in the history of the country,” he said.
Some questioned the motives of Dodd’s outspokenness against granting amnesty to the telecoms during his bid for the presidency. Suffice it to say, those questions cannot be raised today and were obviously without merit before. Unfortunately, they were just shining examples of too much rhetoric accompanied by no action.
The Democratic Senators — Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Claire McCaskill, Mary Landrieu, and Bill Nelson, too name a few — that gave aid and comfort to George Bush and the telecoms today, should strongly consider attending a Dodd-presented lecture on patriotism.
The Senate’s overwhelming decision today to provide retroactive immunity to telecom companies for illegally wiretapping Americans clearly demonstrates the level of influence lobbyists and special interests have in Washington. Lawmakers decided it was more important to protect companies, such as AT&T and Verizon, from criminal prosecution and numerous lawsuits worth billions of dollars than it was to protect American citizens from terrorist threats and uphold their Fourth Amendment rights. (Bush promised to veto FISA bill if it did not include amnesty.)
Quite simply, Congress dismissed the Rule of Law, acquiesced to the authoritarian rule of George Bush, and sanctioned lining their pockets with substantial contributions from the telecom companies.
The lawmakers’ decision today goes to the very core of what former presidential candidate John Edwards fought so hard against in his unsuccessful bid for the White House this year. Following Edwards’ lead, Barack Obama adopted the same platform for his campaign – accept no campaign funds from Washington lobbyists and special interests, and ban them from holding White House positions. Hillary Clinton has chosen to continue accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists and special interests.
The amendment [S.Amdt. 3907 to S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)], sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, failed on a 31 to 67 vote. (Official results here.)
Democrats siding with Republicans were: Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
Presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain were present and voted Yea and Nay, respectively. Hillary Clinton was not present for voting.
Glenn Greenwald has a very good analysis on the amnesty bill today, which I highly recommend. In addition, Glenn notes that he, FDL et al. have a petition, “directed at House members, demanding that they reject this lawless, authoritarian Senate bill and defend their own, previously passed bill (the RESTORE Act). I encourage everyone to sign it. You can do so here.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has backed out of a formal unanimous consent agreement to move a public lands bill, charging that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was using the deal to turn the bill into an election-year effort to score political points against Democrats.
Under the Dec. 19 UC, Reid agreed to allow Coburn to have five amendments to The National Forests, Parks, Public Land and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act of 2007 considered on the floor, after which the chamber would vote on the full bill. Coburn had blocked the bill for much of last year because of concerns over the legislation’s costs. The agreement did not specify which amendments would be allowed or what topics could be addressed by Coburn’s proposals, only that they be germane, according to floor transcripts found in the Congressional Record.
But what Reid did not know at the time was that Coburn planned to use one of his five amendment slots to insert language allowing national parks visitors to be armed. While Coburn and his staff, citing data showing increasing rates of violent crimes on national parks, insist the amendment is needed, it also would serve as something of poison pill, since Democrats almost certainly would want to avoid having a gun-rights fight during an election year.
