Dodd wins temporary victory, FISA bill pulled until January

Despite opposition from progressive leaders and activists, yesterday’s debate on FISA — and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with Bush’s warrantless-surveillance scheme — was poised to go very badly. The political establishment had all but decided that this was a good bill, the media was treating the debate as a nuisance, and when it was time to bring the bill to the floor, only 10 senators expressed opposition.

It was going to be a long day — right up until we won a surprising, hard-earned, and entirely temporary victory. Sam Stein reports:

Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance.

The measure was part of a greater bill to reorganize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Earlier on Monday, the Senate, agreed to address a bill that would have overhauled FISA, authorized the monitoring of people outside the United States, given secret courts the power to approve aspects of surveillance, and granted telecom companies retroactive immunity for past cooperation.

But the threat of Dodd’s filibuster, aimed primarily at the latter measure, persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period.

“We have tried to work through this process and it appears quite clear at this stage on this bill that we’re not going to be able to do that,” said Reid. “We are at the last few hours of the last few days of this year’s session of Congress… I think it’s very clear we’re not going to be able to move into the amendments…. I’ve spoken with a number of Senators and we feel it would be in the best interest of the Senate to take at look at this when we come back next year.”

Good. Chris Dodd, to his enormous credit, had been making his case to his colleagues, off and on, for nearly eight hours, and was prepared to keep going, until he physically couldn’t continue. Reid’s office later said the decision to pull the bill wasn’t in response to Dodd’s efforts, but I think it’s entirely fair to say that were it not for Dodd, this legislation would have sailed through the Senate yesterday.

By all indications, the Senate leadership seems to be pushing for some kind of resolution before they reconsider the measure next month. Here’s a statement from Reid’s office:

“The Senate is committed to improving our nation’s intelligence laws to fight terrorism while protecting Americans’ civil liberties. We need to take the time necessary to debate a bill that does just that, rather than rushing one through the legislative process. While we had hoped to complete the FISA bill this week, it is clear that is not possible. With more than a dozen amendments to this complex and controversial bill, this legislation deserves time for thorough discussion on the floor.

“We will consider this bill when we return in January. In the meantime, I again encourage the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to make available to all Senators the relevant documents on retroactive immunity, so that each may reach an informed decision on how to proceed on this provision. I oppose retroactive immunity, but believe every Senator must have access to the information to make this important decision.”

At the risk of engaging in blog triumphalism, the netroots has every reason to pat themselves on the back for this. Several leading sites, most notably Glenn Greenwald and FireDogLake, rallied the “troops” on a measure that most of the political establishment ignored, and found a willing ally in Chris Dodd. It made yesterday an impressive win — and sent a signal that there’s a lot of work to be done over the next month to ensure the immunity measure isn’t passed in January.

The legislation touched a nerve, and the community responded. Matt Browner-Hamlin, who works for Dodd’s presidential campaign, noted that 16,000 people visited Dodd’s page for emailing their senators about this, and a total of more than 11,300 emails were sent — all in a fairly short amount of time, about a measure that gained very little media attention.

For all the recent legislative disappointments, it was heartening to see a positive result yesterday.

A compromise

Wow. I haven’t heard that word used in a while when describing the Senate’s actions. Good for them.

  • This was also an astute move on Dodd The Presidential Candidate’s part. Go Chris.

    I again encourage the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to make available to all Senators the relevant documents on retroactive immunity, so that each may reach an informed decision on how to proceed on this provision.

    They didn’t have this information already? WTF??

    I oppose retroactive immunity, but believe every Senator must have access to the information to make this important decision.

    See, if he said “and believe” that would make sense (within the sentence at least, not in light of his actions.) Go away Harry.

  • a couple months ago i took one of those online ‘what candidate best matches your viewpoints’ polls and surprisingly dodd came out on top. ever since then i’ve started actually listening to what he has to say, and the man’s positions are articulate, on point and realistically implementable (i know, sounds perversely egotistical but you get my point ;-).

    my question is — how does a presidential candidate of his caliber go so unnoticed? why isn’t he taken more seriously? is it all about the money?

  • I oppose retroactive immunity

    How many inches did Reid’s nose grow when this statement was released?

  • Top priority for Senate Democrats in 2008: Dump Harry Reid and get a real leader: Chris Dodd.

  • You see, “compromise” is supposed to imply our side gets a little, the other side gets a little. We don’t get everything we wanted, but we don’t go home with our tail between our legs, and those of us still capable of feeling shame dripping with it. That’s exactly what “compromise” has come to mean in the Harry Reid senate.

    I’m still disgusted with him and with the shitty job he’s doing. I agree with zeitgeist, above; Reid is not opposed to retroactive immunity at all. He simply sees he can’t get it through right now without a big stink and a lot of finger-pointing, and that he’d have to behave even more cravenly than usual and vocally support the Republican position. I’m beginning to despise the sight of him almost as much as I do Lieberman.

    Count on it that Reid will use the delay neither to ensure senators have the relevant material for study, or in stripping the bill of the retroactive immunity proviso once again. It couldn’t be clearer that it’s a grotesque cop-out, but it’s what he intends to ram through.

  • Hooray! Thank you, Chris Dodd. Thanks also to the blogosphere and to Air America.

    Harry Reid ALWAYS caves to the threat of a filibuster. It’s nice to see that threat come from a courageous Democrat for once.

    You don’t neeed 67 votes, or 61 votes, 60 votes, or 40 votes, or allies. You need once Democrat with balls.

    Thanks again, Chris Dodd.

  • “my question is — how does a presidential candidate of his caliber go so unnoticed? why isn’t he taken more seriously? is it all about the money?”

    i’ve been asking this same question for quite some time now. dodd always seems to have great answers to questions, and good policy as well. but the media ignores him altogether. when was the last time you heard anything about dodd on the evening news? it’s always just about the “big three” that have already been annointed by the media.

    maybe, if we’re really lucky, dodd will get some attention now……

  • I’ve been a Dodd-fan for a long time now. I’m voting for him in the New Mexico primary on Feb 5th. Probably throwing my vote away, but, eh, what the hell!

  • I have been more and more impressed with Chris Dodd as a presidential candidate. His actions yesterday on the FISA bill only raise his standing with me.

    As a candidate I think that Dodd is a bit charisma-challenged, but he would make a fine president. He would probably make a better president than any of the others who are running. My vote in our primary will be based on whoever seems to have the best chance to finish ahead of Hillary, but… Wouldn’t Dodd make an excellent vice-president?

  • I’ve heard Dodd speak at length on PBS and he was articulate and persuasive.

    I don’t know that he can get through the hurdles of the press’ oblivion to win the presidency but I sincerely hope he takes over from Reid. Even with a Democratic president, Reid will be an impediment to progressive causes in the Senate.

  • Dodd is a breath of fresh air. If he doesn’t win the Presidency, he should be the majority leader. Dodd has the common sense that Washington so desperately needs.

  • By the time I cast my primary vote in Oregon (May 20th), the Democratic nominee already will be selected. I agree with phoebes; my vote is going to Chris Dodd. He is showing the leadership that most Senate Democrats, including Clinton and Obama, lack. And kudos to my senator, Ron Wyden.

  • Dodd would make a really good, solid, competent president. If only the media had paid him some attention, he might be doing well by now. I actually think he’d make a better president than the top tier candidates.

    Off topic, but for me it was a jaw-dropper: last night Chris Matthews admitted he voted for Bush in 2000. I just can’t believe this guy is so blind as that. Everyone knew Bush was an incompetent fool by then. It was only the degree of his corrupt and shallow nature that was in doubt, which did in fact turn out to be stratospheric, beyond imagination.

  • I have no explanation for it, but the fact is that the only sitting Senator elected to the presidency in much more than a century was Jack Kennedy. It may be that the Senate (primarily a deliberative body) either draws or creates people who won’t “stand up” to power. Governors do that every day as part of their job. Edwards did that as a trial lawyer. Not sure what all this means, except that I’m not sure Dodd’s legislative courage (anymore than Feingold’s rhetorical courage) will translate into an effective presidency.

  • I liked Reid and thought he was a good replacement for Daschle. Even if I didn’t agree with everything he did, I thought a lot of the criticism of him was unwarranted and that he did well with what he had. But I was really ashamed at his behavior on this bill. Not only was it the wrong policy, but he got the politics wrong too.

    All I can think is that there was some mighty pressure on him to get this passed, though I still think it was a mistake. I’m just hoping that he’ll come to his senses on this issue. Opposing retroactive immunity is just a no-brainer. I don’t necessarily think that we need to jail all the telecom execs, I just don’t think we should be giving them a free pass either, particularly when we still don’t know exactly what they did. But whatever it was, it must have been awfully bad.

  • It may be that the Senate (primarily a deliberative body) either draws or creates people who won’t “stand up” to power.

    I don’t think it’s that really, as there have been some strong Senators in the past. I think it’s just a different mentality. The skills that it takes to write laws and negotiate with equals is just different from the skills that it takes to execute laws and make things happen. Of course, that’s a little different these days, as the presidency has become more and more the equivalent of Chief Congressman, being expected to write laws, negotiate with Congressmen, and tell Congress what to do. This is even more apparent during the Bush Admin, though Clinton and prior presidents acted similarly. A president who can’t bully Congress is considered a sign of weakness. In fact, Bush is clearly much better at bullying Congress than getting things done; showing that he’s got his job entirely backwards.

    Plus, successful Congressmen are forced to compromise, and actually have to go on the record regarding countless issues, many of which won’t ever become law. But governors are more able to stay above the fray and are better about choosing which issues they discuss and how they handle them. Particuarly with Bush, who only had to serve six years in public office, and was able to tailor his policies for a presidential run; which was also aided by the fact that the Texas legislature only meets once every two years. Had he served his time down in the trenches, it’s quite doubtful he would ever have made it to the Whitehouse. Even now, they strive to ensure that bills never get to the Whitehouse, so he never has to go on the record with a veto. So Republican Congressmen do his dirtywork, while he stays clean.

    Governors can do the same thing, which is how Bush did things. One big fight here in Texas I remember was over S-CHIP, which he strongly opposed and was a tricky issue, so they tried to scuttle it before it could get to him. But once it passed the legislature, he was forced to sign it; which pissed him off entirely. He opposed the bill, but couldn’t go on record opposing it, because he was “compassionate” back then. But were he a legislator, he couldn’t have avoided it.

  • Funny how, if he is ‘opposed’ to immunity, Reid managed to bring to the floor a version of the bill that had immunity, instead of the one that didn’t have it. Especially when he had to ignore Dodd’s hold in order to do so. And that he should choose to do so with only hours left before recess, when the pressure would be to pass something and worry about it later.

    That doesn’t seem like opposition to me.

  • I just gave Dodd some money too. It wasn’t much, but it was the best I could do during the expensive Christmas season. I don’t know if it’ll help him win the nomination and generally don’t get involved in primary politics, but it will certainly help send a signal that we support what he did and that it can be good politics to do the right thing. Remember, even $5 or $10 will help show Washington that we’re dead serious about opposing this immunity deal. The Dems in Congress are probably fearing the telecom’s money (and rightfully so). We need to show them that we have money too.

    And just so y’all know, I didn’t give him money based solely on this one issue. I already liked him, and just read even more on his website to make me like him more. We sure could do worse than having a President Dodd.

  • And then there’s the absolute, should-be-career-ending, travesty of Harry Reid ignoring Dodd’s hold and honoring all Republican holds.

  • I will go to the caucus supporting Dodd, but given that he is at 1% in Iowa, the odds of him being viable are slim. Still, he is having a holiday party at a local restaurant and bar this week, and I hope to be able to stop by and thank him in person. He started talking seriously about the Constitution in August and has not stopped, he has tons of experience and of just plain decency.

    As for the “why is he only at 1%” issue, I think there are many reasons. In part due to Senatitis, he is not good at soundbites, he does not exude charisma, he gives complex and windy answers at times. He looks like your kindly grandpa, not like a forceful, energetic President from central casting. And he got stuck in tough year where historical candidates like Obama, Clinton and Richardson were running, and against people who give tele-friendly oratory (Obama again, Edwards and Biden). He didn’t have a natural constituency when this started — I suspect the Feingold-progressives were (and perhaps still are) more than a little skeptical about Dodd’s banking committee position (and he has taken buckets of campaign money from those under the committee’s jurisdiction).

    Still, it is too bad, because I think he would make the best President of the bunch.

  • hark: “Off topic, but for me it was a jaw-dropper: last night Chris Matthews admitted he voted for Bush in 2000.”

    sometimes matthews reminds me of a trial lawyer who crawls so far out on ‘legalities limbs’ (e.g. ‘twinkies defense’, playin’ the race card) that he loses touch with what justice/common sense/the real issues really are.

  • I sent him some money last night too (for the second time; first time was when he promised to filibuster the “fixed” FISA). But I also think we need him in the Senate even more than as President (and I doubt he has any chance of that, anyway). We need someone with principles to serve as a model to the rest of them; they’d forgotten how to fight. And we sure need someone like him to replace “the broken Reid”. Otherwise, even if we get 60 Dems in the Senate after the elections, they’ll still settle down into the miasma of cowering every time a Repub says “boo”>

  • To all who find this page , ask yourself . Why it has not been a story on CNN MSNBC or any other MSM i’ve been watching, but nothing WHY?
    Go Chris Dodd.
    Remember (R) talking points RULE OF LAW

  • One of the biggest and most important happenings of the year in the senate and the MSM fails to even mention it. It certainly was bigger than the condemnation of Move on.org .
    Procedure be damned, if Reid wasn’t for amnesty he wouldn’t have brought this version of the bill to come to the floor or to ignore Dodd’s hold while supporting Graham’s hold and all other Republican holds this year.

    Feinstein and Rockefeller have been bought and Reid has accepted large campaign donations from the telecoms also. Congress is overstepping its bounds in trying to provide amnesty and immunity for breaking the law to large corporations. The whole thing is so transparent that they are being bribed by campaign donations that you’d think they’d be ashamed to go forward in full public view and cater to their donors demands. But they are shameless when it comes to money. There are both dems and repubs who make up the “money party” and this issue makes them extremely visible but I expected the majority leader to stand apart from it. I am extremely disappointed and see Reid in a whole different light. I don’t trust him anymore nor do I believe in his ability to lead the democratic senate.
    If it weren’t for Dodd this bill would already be on the presidents desk. If it weren’t for us, Dodd would not have been so motivated to interrupt his campaigning to filibuster this unlawful bill. Dodd is the hero of the day and so are all who stood with him and supported him. A temporary feel good moment………….ok, I’m done now when do the impeachment hearings begin?

  • I have been sickened by the failure of the Democrats to stand up to the lame duck administration on the issues of war, privacy, and protecting the constitution. It is very refreshing to see Senator Dodd stand up and say “enough”. I have changed my mind about my choice in the primary. I will be voting for Dodd because I have had it with lame Democrats.

  • Re: #21: I agree with your sentiment. I think it speaks volumes about who Reid is really allied with when he has stalled countless bills this year merely by the GOP threat of filibuster, but he forces Dodd to actually engage in one for eight hours before pulling the bill from consideration.

    Seriously, whose side is Reid on?

  • Comments are closed.