Democrats sell out in Congress

El_Kabong

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080624/OPINION02/806240323/1037/OPINION02

Democrats sell out in Congress

June 24, 2008

This past Friday was a sad day for Democrats and liberals around the country. This was the day we learned for sure that Democratic control of the House and Senate means absolutely nothing. This was the day that the House approved passage of the amended FISA bill — the bill that virtually assures immunity to law-breaking telecommunications companies and grants the government new powers to spy upon its citizens.

Nancy Pelosi has tried to paint this legislation a s a compromise, but all but one Republican voted for this bill, while more than half the Democrats voted against it. The New York Times called this legislation "a major victory for the White House," and Republican Sen. Christopher Bond (Missouri) said, "I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."

Does that sound like a compromise? With most of the compromises I've seen, both sides are somewhat dissastisfied. So why is it that only Democrats are dissatisfied with this bill? Let's remember this fact: Democrats control both chambers of Congress.

Clearly this was no compromise. It was a capitulation to George W. Bush, the most unpopular president in history. And it was a capitulation to those huge campaign donors: AT&T, Comcast, etc.

Sadly, Barack Obama, who was a vocal opponent of telecommunications amnesty during the primaries, didn't take any stand on this issue when it mattered. As the current leader of his party, he could have stepped in, but instead chose to remain mute. Whatever else he may be, we now know that Obama is just a politician. Even if he wins the White House, nothing will change.

With leadership like this, I have to ask myself why I would ever support a Democrat again — in any race. That's why I'm going to vote for Anthony Pollina for governor. I hope Ralph Nader is on the ballot.

STEPHEN ZEOLI



one of the very small few that haven't sold us out (tho much of the public has sold him out)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM2HLbcUafA

tybird

"And it was a capitulation to those huge campaign donors: AT&T, Comcast, etc."..that's the key phrase in this little article. It's all about money and getting re-elected for the majority of this nation's politicians.

noodles_jefferson

from waht i read, the only compromise is that the telecoms can still be tried in criminal cases but not individual civil cases. so the govt. and i belive, class action criminal cases can still go after them. the white house was seeking total immunity. but you're right, the 4th amendment went right out the window. This is very disheartening. dems, obama included, better explain themselves or risk losing a lot of support.

blackredyellow

noodles_jefferson wrote:

from waht i read, the only compromise is that the telecoms can still be tried in criminal cases but not individual civil cases. so the govt. can still go after them. the white house was seekign total immunity. but you're right, the 4th amendment went right out the window.

What do you think the chances are that to government will ever go after them?

noodles_jefferson

blackredyellow wrote:

What do you think the chances are that to government will ever go after them?

who knows. Obama said he would not stop any investigation into these guys, but after supporting this bill i don't know waht to think anymore. I have a lot of readign to do on this.

noodles_jefferson

not saying this excuses it, but for what it's worth, here's Obamas comment on why he supported it.


"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act. "


whether you believie he will work to get the retroactive immunity part taken out in the Senate is up to you. I tend to, but very tentatively. i don't like this at all. it smells like rotten fish. I must admit, i'm startin to lose a little faith.

Pacomc79

noodles_jefferson wrote:

from waht i read, the only compromise is that the telecoms can still be tried in criminal cases but not individual civil cases. so the govt. and i belive, class action criminal cases can still go after them. the white house was seeking total immunity. but you're right, the 4th amendment went right out the window. This is very disheartening. dems, obama included, better explain themselves or risk losing a lot of support.

This is assuming people care. The telecom act of 1996 went through without much of a whimper.

Digital Spectrum. Sure, I'll take that for free... thanks. Kind of funny when you consider all the acquisition and subsequent cooked books from companies like MCI World Com. (oh no we didn't try to eliminate competition....)

People vote D because they are used to it. They vote R because they are used to it. It feels right to them. If content actually mattered... it would never have come this far. People are voting on an image or idea of what they think most reflects thier views... Actual content, they don't care enough to notice en mass.

I really honestly think op ed's are more watched or listened to than actual hard news.

noodles_jefferson

Pacomc79 wrote:

This is assuming people care. The telecom act of 1996 went through without much of a whimper.

Digital Spectrum. Sure, I'll take that for free... thanks. Kind of funny when you consider all the acquisition and subsequent cooked books from companies like MCI World Com. (oh no we didn't try to eliminate competition....)

People vote D because they are used to it. They vote R because they are used to it. It feels right to them. If content actually mattered... it would never have come this far. People are voting on an image or idea of what they think most reflects thier views... Actual content, they don't care enough to notice en mass.

I really honestly think op ed's are more watched or listened to than actual hard news.

it does usually come dwon to the lesser of two evils. If we had a viable third party, it would be the lesser of 3 evils. and you're right, there is no news anymore, just pundits wtih opinions. Isn't ABC owned by GE? and aren't they one of the country's biggest defense contactors? good luck getting balanced news coverage there. you have to watch the freakin Daily show just to get informed! )) pretty sad. I listen to 940 winz, progressive radio. they have the Thom Hartman show and Randi Rhodes which I enjoy listening to, especially Thom Hartman, he really seems to know his stuff.

Abookamongstthemany

noodles_jefferson wrote:

it does usually come dwon to the lesser of two evils. If we had a viable third party, it would be the lesser of 3 evils. and you're right, there is no news anymore, just pundits wtih opinions. Isn't ABC owned by GE? and aren't they one of the country's biggest defense contactors? good luck getting balanced news coverage there. you have to watch the freakin Daily show just to get informed! )) pretty sad. I listen to 940 winz, progressive radio. they have the Thom Hartman show and Randi Rhodes which I enjoy listening to, especially Thom Hartman, he really seems to know his stuff.

Here's a simple enough rule that might just make things a bit better in this country:

If you have to refer to a candidate as evil in any form, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!


Me, myself, I tend to wanna leans towards adjectives such as good, great, honest, true...those kinda things. So when voting for a candidate maybe... just maybe we should be able to describe them with something better than 'less evil' if we really have any hope of making this country a better place.

Kel Varnsen

From a Canadian point of view, I am not sure I totally get US politics. I mean I understand that the democrat controlled congress says they can't get any laws they want passed because Bush will just veto them and they don't have a big enough majority to override the veto. But what I don't get is if they aren't going to get anything done anyways, why not make him earn that veto power? Send bills up to the White House every day so that every single day he has to use his veto power, making him look like an even less popular bad guy. To me that would seem a lot better than not even trying to pass laws and saying we didn't bother because we knew the president would veto it.

Pacomc79

Kel Varnsen wrote:

From a Canadian point of view, I am not sure I totally get US politics. I mean I understand that the democrat controlled congress says they can't get any laws they want passed because Bush will just veto them and they don't have a big enough majority to override the veto. But what I don't get is if they aren't going to get anything done anyways, why not make him earn that veto power? Send bills up to the White House every day so that every single day he has to use his veto power, making him look like an even less popular bad guy. To me that would seem a lot better than not even trying to pass laws and saying we didn't bother because we knew the president would veto it.

Even better, give the president line item veto power. Then whomever the president is will have the power if they read the bill to kick out BS that isn't really involved with the actual legislation that needs to be passed.

Abookamongstthemany

Kel Varnsen wrote:

From a Canadian point of view, I am not sure I totally get US politics. I mean I understand that the democrat controlled congress says they can't get any laws they want passed because Bush will just veto them and they don't have a big enough majority to override the veto. But what I don't get is if they aren't going to get anything done anyways, why not make him earn that veto power? Send bills up to the White House every day so that every single day he has to use his veto power, making him look like an even less popular bad guy. To me that would seem a lot better than not even trying to pass laws and saying we didn't bother because we knew the president would veto it.

Exactly!!!

kh65

Bill Clinton is to Monica Lewinsky as Democrats are to.... (cocksuckers).

noodles_jefferson

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Here's a simple enough rule that might just make things a bit better in this country:

If you have to refer to a candidate as evil in any form, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!


Me, myself, I tend to wanna leans towards adjectives such as good, great, honest, true...those kinda things. So when voting for a candidate maybe... just maybe we should be able to describe them with something better than 'less evil' if we really have any hope of making this country a better place.

well I do like Obama's stance on many issues, i'm not happy that he and other dems backed this supposed compromise, though. but I will still vote forc him over McCain.

British Columbia is starting to look better every day. great buds, affordable health care. much more civilized than us.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Here's a simple enough rule that might just make things a bit better in this country:

If you have to refer to a candidate as evil in any form, DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!


Me, myself, I tend to wanna leans towards adjectives such as good, great, honest, true...those kinda things. So when voting for a candidate maybe... just maybe we should be able to describe them with something better than 'less evil' if we really have any hope of making this country a better place.

"Hmmm... I don't like his 'spy on everyone' policy.... but I do like his 'vague, optmistic notion of change' policy..."

Kel Varnsen

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

"Hmmm... I don't like his 'spy on everyone' policy.... but I do like his 'vague, optmistic notion of change' policy..."

How do you feel about his Bart and Selma killing policies?

Rhinocerous Surprise

Kel Varnsen wrote:

How do you feel about his Bart and Selma killing policies?

After watching the Simpsons movie today, I'm completely on board. Kill 'em all. :mad:

noodles_jefferson

the more i think about this the more angry I get.

and women need to pay close attention to this. the 4th amendment is where they get their privacy rights to their own body. this is the rowe ir rowe vs. wade. if they can do this, and you know they want to overturn rowe vs. Wade, it just makes it that much easier. If Mccain gets in office and appoints conservative judges as we know he will, women will no loger be able to decide when they want to have children. hello, back alley obortions!

Its Evolution Baby

Kel Varnsen wrote:

From a Canadian point of view, I am not sure I totally get US politics. I mean I understand that the democrat controlled congress says they can't get any laws they want passed because Bush will just veto them and they don't have a big enough majority to override the veto. But what I don't get is if they aren't going to get anything done anyways, why not make him earn that veto power? Send bills up to the White House every day so that every single day he has to use his veto power, making him look like an even less popular bad guy. To me that would seem a lot better than not even trying to pass laws and saying we didn't bother because we knew the president would veto it.

This would work in theory if the Democrats were better organized like the Republicans. For the most part all Republicans in congress vote the same way on all issues. McCain is one of the most moderate Republicans in congress so what does that tell you!!!

With Democrats you have more liberal senators like Teddy Kennedy, Obama (sorry Abooks but this is true) Hillary but also more centrist Democrats like Lieberman, Dan Boren, and many others from Southern states that will not stick to party lines.

In fact some won't even support Obama publicly because hes to liberal.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/06/11/moderate-democrats-turn-away-from-barack-obama-ohio-gov-ted-strickland-says-no-to-vp-position/

A more unified Democratic party would be the first step to fully combating the Republicans, but what I like about the Democratic Party is that its open to more ideas so I don't know if its something that will ever improve.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

This would work in theory if the Democrats were better organized like the Republicans. For the most part all Republicans in congress vote the same way on all issues. McCain is one of the most moderate Republicans in congress so what does that tell you!!!

With Democrats you have more liberal senators like Teddy Kennedy, Obama (sorry Abooks but this is true) Hillary but also more centrist Democrats like Lieberman, Dan Boren, and many others from Southern states that will not stick to party lines.

In fact some won't even support Obama publicly because hes to liberal.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/06/11/moderate-democrats-turn-away-from-barack-obama-ohio-gov-ted-strickland-says-no-to-vp-position/

A more unified Democratic party would be the first step to fully combating the Republicans, but what I like about the Democratic Party is that its open to more ideas so I don't know if its something that will ever improve.

Then tell me how he is so overwhelmingly liberal...

noodles_jefferson

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

This would work in theory if the Democrats were better organized like the Republicans. For the most part all Republicans in congress vote the same way on all issues. McCain is one of the most moderate Republicans in congress so what does that tell you!!!

With Democrats you have more liberal senators like Teddy Kennedy, Obama (sorry Abooks but this is true) Hillary but also more centrist Democrats like Lieberman, Dan Boren, and many others from Southern states that will not stick to party lines.

In fact some won't even support Obama publicly because hes to liberal.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/06/11/moderate-democrats-turn-away-from-barack-obama-ohio-gov-ted-strickland-says-no-to-vp-position/

A more unified Democratic party would be the first step to fully combating the Republicans, but what I like about the Democratic Party is that its open to more ideas so I don't know if its something that will ever improve.

things won't change until people get pissed of enough to change the makeup of their elected leaders. congress needs an enima.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Then tell me how he is so overwhelmingly liberal...

Hes Pro Choice including Parial Birth, Wants to tax corporations rather then the poor and middle class, In favor or stem cells, voted no on gay marriage ban and supports states rights for gay marriage, Voted NO on Flag desecration ban, hold corporations responsible for retirement and pensions of employees, voted yes to Ban drilling in Africa for oil, against Iraq War from the beginning, etc etc etc.

Theres ton more but I have to go back to work.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

noodles_jefferson

all is not lost yet. they're goin to try to split the bill up in the senate and seperate out the immunity part and try to vote that down. let's hope.

VictoryGin

noodles_jefferson wrote:

the more i think about this the more angry I get.

and women need to pay close attention to this. the 4th amendment is where they get their privacy rights to their own body. this is the rowe ir rowe vs. wade. if they can do this, and you know they want to overturn rowe vs. Wade, it just makes it that much easier. If Mccain gets in office and appoints conservative judges as we know he will, women will no loger be able to decide when they want to have children. hello, back alley obortions!

roe v. wade benefited from the 14th amendment's due process clause.

but you're right on mccain. he is one anti-woman dood.

VictoryGin

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Hes Pro Choice including Parial Birth, Wants to tax corporations rather then the poor and middle class, In favor or stem cells, voted no on gay marriage ban and supports states rights for gay marriage, Voted NO on Flag desecration ban, hold corporations responsible for retirement and pensions of employees, voted yes to Ban drilling in Africa for oil, against Iraq War from the beginning, etc etc etc.

Theres ton more but I have to go back to work.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

i know you're trying to help, but please don't use the term 'partial-birth'. it is not a medical term but an emotional, incorrect, term used by conservatives to make it sound worse than it is. if you're looking for something to use maybe try 'late-term abortion'.

Its Evolution Baby

VictoryGin wrote:

i know you're trying to help, but please don't use the term 'partial-birth'. it is not a medical term but an emotional, incorrect, term used by conservatives to make it sound worse than it is. if you're looking for something to use maybe try 'late-term abortion'.

Yea I don't like the term either per se but I was just looking for his most liberal viewpoints since I was asked. Thats why it was just a list.

I do think your term is more accurate however.

El_Kabong

noodles_jefferson wrote:

well I do like Obama's stance on many issues, i'm not happy that he and other dems backed this supposed compromise, though. but I will still vote forc him over McCain.

British Columbia is starting to look better every day. great buds, affordable health care. much more civilized than us.

affordable health care? how much does it cost?

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

against Iraq War from the beginning

no, he wasn't.

and you left out "voted for patriot act, supports FISA legislation, voted in condolezza rice" in your 'too leftist' speech. :rolleyes: