FISA ‘compromise’ to draw filibuster, Reid opposition

June 25, 2008

What do we know about the status of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) “compromise” legislation, currently pending in the Senate? As of yesterday, we know quite a bit.

We know, for example, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid feels obligated to move the bill to the floor, but he’s not going to vote for it.

“I am not going to vote for the FISA bill,” Reid said. “There are people, Mr. President, who have worked on this FISA matter for three months or more and again the administration worked with them. Did they, on the FISA bill, move enough to make me vote for the bill? The answer is no.”

We also know that Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) are going to filibuster the bill if it includes retroactive immunity.

“This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.”

We also know that Chris Dodd can give quite a speech on the subject.

We also know that Sens. Boxer (D-Calif.) and Wyden (D-Ore.) will support the filibuster.

And finally, we know there’s a chance the vote may be pushed off until after the July 4 holiday recess.

This is honestly the best we can hope for right now. Sens. Dodd, Wyden and Feingold are ready to filibuster and gamely trying to get colleagues to do the same (Sen. Dodd’s speech tonight was a bravura performance), but realistically the numbers to stop cloture aren’t there. However, that could change if the delay continues. And getting this to the recess means being able to get in a lot of Senators’ faces on their trips back home. In addition, there’s going to be a very short window in August where a ton of must-pass bills have to get through Congress, and throwing FISA in with that mess means that anything can happen.

Stay tuned.

Obama said he will do everything he can to get retroactive immunity removed from the bill. Since that is the goal of the filibuster, he has to support it, right?

  • If your campaign has made a crystal-clear statement that “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity”, and lo and behold a filibuster materializes, and it’s still before the election (and not after when you can blithely ignore all the promises and pledges you made), then how can you not support the filibuster?

    So Barack’s only ‘honorable” option now is to offer the weakest, most tepid support possible? It looks like he’s definitely on track for “too little and too late”.

  • Obama needs to take a firm stand on this instead of snipe with James Dobson.

    For the record, Chris Dodd was my first choice. I’m delighted to see him do this, and I’d love to see him Senate majority leader.

  • I’ve been giving this whole thing a lot of thought, and other than reinforcing my belief that Feingold would be the best President in U.S. history, it’s also given me — all of us, actually — a chance to see if Obama’s actions keep pace with his rhetoric.

    For me, it’s simple: If he doesn’t support the filibuster and/or join in (assuming it gets to that point), he’s full of shit … nothing more than an empty suit who uses his mouth slightly better than a $20 whore. And quite frankly, I’ll have one helluva time voting for him.

    If he truly steps up to the plate, my confidence in his leadership will be set and I’ll find a way to donate to his campaign.

    We’ll see what happens …

    **crosses fingers for the latter**

  • I’m also disappointed at Obama’s silence on this issue. He needs to signal strong support for the filibuster and, if necessary, return to the Senate to vote against cloture.

  • just bill, Chris of Atlanta,

    Obama hasn’t been silent on this issue. He pledged before to support a filibuster and he said in a statement last Friday he doesn’t support retroactive immunity.

    My concern, with Obama as well as the remainder of this effort, is that retroactive immunity will become the focus of the bill when in reality, the more disturbing part of this FISA bill is the legalization of much of Bush’s power grabs concerning spying on US citizens.

    This bill is an affront to our right to privacy and the rule of law in its entirety, not just because of corporate immunity.

  • Of course Feingold would be best, …but the glitch here is that he would probably never be elected given the demons of smear and the polarity in our country aided and abetted by the talking heads corporate media and the lack of full and correct reporting in other media.

    One might also ask: where is Hillary on this?

    But I am saddened that Obama is not more forcefully vocal on this. Given his background as a constitutional scholar and expert he could speak with more authority than most. I realize he has a lot on the line right now and is walking a tightrope…but none the less he is the presumptive “leader”.

  • Keep calling Obama and press him to speak up on this. Tell your friends. I have gotten 5 people to give calls to our Senators and Obama. If everyone does this they WILL start to look at this as a big deal

  • To all disappointed with Obama’s response, go to his web site or call 886-675-2008 and let his minions know how you feel. I am sure he doesn’t want to hand those nasty neo cons an election issue and a chance to say he is pro-terrorism and wants those bad guys to blow up america (whatever that word means now-a-days) but he should take a stand against this FISA bill. It’s an awful bill that gives more power to Bushit and grants retroactive immunity from prosecution to Bush and his telecom lemmings. My stomach turned when I heard he would support the bill but try to eliminate the immunity. Try to eliminate the immunity. Doesn’t give one much hope does it? How about go down with the ship trying to eliminate the immunity clause and if he can’t, then he’ll vote against it. BUT he isn’t/hasn’t said that. Perhaps he’s not as strong a candidate that we all thought. maybe Billary was right about his “Only a speech” type guy. We’ll see…

  • I just got off the phone with one of his volunteers and gave him an earful. When you call the number I gave you select option #6 and you’ll get a real person. I gave him hell. Feel free to do the same.

  • Again, basic fifth-grade Civics. The bil in the Senate WILL be different from the House bill, which means that it will have to go to a ‘Conference Committee’ to reconcile the differences. That Committee is NOT bound to go along with either version, but can rewrite the bill in just about any way it likes. The real test for Obama — besides his support of the fillibuster and any important amendments — will be who he supports as the Senate members of that Committee.

    (It is, I believe, even possible that he himself and/or Hillary could be made members of the Committee, as could either Dodd or Feingold or both. It will be necessary for them to vote in favor of the final Senate Bill to be put on the Committee, so please don’t start condemning them for ‘backing down’ if they do vote in this way.)

    And one thing that keeps being ignored is the likelihood of Bush vetoing whatever bill is finally passed — since if he does, the current status quo will be maintained. This will leave the Bill to be brought up in the next Congress, where the party line-up will be *ahem* considerably different.

    I am not sure I agree with Pelosi for bringing up the bill, but I do understand her reasoning — that the one perceived ‘weakness’ for the Democrats is in the field of national security and terrorism, and that by enabling the Democrats to cast a vote for a bill on the subject — a bill which she knows won’t be passed in its current form and which will probably never pass because of the veto — she shores up their position among ‘Low Information Voters.’ (Has any previous campaign celebrated ‘ignorance’ — not stupidity but ignorance — the way this has begun to. Party unity forbids me from pointing out whose fault this is among Democrats.)

    Whatever, those people who have proclaimed that this shows that “Obama is no better than Bush” deserve a Tom Cleaver-style blasting, but I don’t use such language. As usual, Obama shows a skill at walking through a minefield unscathed, and I am confident that, by the time the bill is passed (and vetoed), some of you who are capable of taking a deep breath and actually thinking before writing will realize this.

  • I have gone to Obama’s website last week and complained about his so-called “silence” on this issue. I got the standard response – they are flooded with e-mails and will respond when able. That I can understand. But just when I thought I was going to ACTIVELY support someone this election year, I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama is a politician just like any other candidate. He can justify anything, anytime, anywhere (his views on FISA, campaign financing) and we can always buy into the excuses too. But so can the Republicans with their candidates. My question is: when does one stop being a sell-out and hold to one’s convictions? Is that even possible in politics?

    Maybe Obama needs to change his campaign slogan: “Shortchange we can believe in”.

    Looks like another year of voting for the “lesser of two evils”…what a drag….

  • Chris Dodd was the only Presidential candidate who interrupted his campaign to return to Washington and fight this bill. Because of the MSM news blackout, it got almost no attention. Dodd and those who stand with him are the real American heroes; I wish he was the Presidential candidate, but he will probably do more for his country as the next Senate Majority Leader.

    A lot of people have asked where Obama is on this, but he has other things to do. Where is Clinton, who has the time on her hands to tackle this important issue? That’s what the primaries were all about: do we fight back, or knuckle under to the worst people in the country when it comes to wars and our rights?

  • The bil in the Senate WILL be different from the House bill… -Prup

    After thinking on this (and you can see my tone is decidedly different), I’ve opted to put my faith in your faith. I sincerely hope we’re not let down.

    …some of you who are capable of taking a deep breath and actually thinking before writing will realize this. -Prup

    I prefer to take my deep breaths somewhere in the middle of an issue, after I’ve already got my blood in a boil. 🙂

    A lot of people have asked where Obama is on this, but he has other things to do. -ericfree

    I have to take offense to that. As my senator, I expect him to do his job. As the leader of the party, I expect him to, well, lead. But he hasn’t been silent. He may not have said what I wanted to hear or lead the way I wanted, but those condemning him for being silent simply weren’t paying attention last week.

  • This hopeful development is entirely the result of the screams and yells heard here and at other progressive places over the past weekend. While we all work diligently for the 60+ Senate, the veto-proof House and Obama in the White House, we have to remember that an independentprogressive/left movement will be even more necessary after January 20 than it is now, to keep these bozos we’re electing on the straight and narrow. We have to become the equivalent for the Democrats that “das base” is to the Republicans.

    This is a nice example of what can be done to save the issue after the idiots do something so stupid as to bring this up in the first place.

  • To Prup who said, “by the time the bill is passed (and vetoed), some of you who are capable of taking a deep breath and actually thinking before writing will realize this.

    Okay, I’m tired of taking deep breathes…I don’t like to hyperventilate as a past-time…I also like to vent on this website amongst friends. Please, oh please don’t sick Tom Cleaver on me!!!!!

  • I think many people are overlooking the uncomfortable idea that : a) Obama has a large lead over McCain in early polls and b) a bill like the FISA “compromise” only strengthens the worst & most asinine excesses of the “unitary executive.”

    Obama has to be a very ambitious & ego-driven person to want to be president — in this day & age, only ambitious & ego-driven people are attracted to the job. It must be very tempting to think, “well, yes, all this unchecked power has been misused for the last 8 years, but I wouldn’t do that, I’d use the power for necessary & good things …”

    imo (I know a lot of people won’t agree with this) Obama is also a conservative Democrat who prefers establishment politics to the people-drive netroots sort. I think he’s used the netroots & organizations like MoveOn without being terribly in line with their (in general) more liberal-leaning ideology.

    Remember folks, Obama endorsed Lieberman in 2006. I mean, seriously — how much better off would we be if Lamont had won?

  • doubtful: I understand your offense. A lot of would-be Obama supporters are just now starting to figure out who he is. The best portrait of Obama is a New Yorker profile from February of ’07; his most revealing comments came in his interview with the Richmond, Va. Times-Dispatch in February ’08, when he praised Ronald Reagan for “transforming America” and said he wasn’t “vested in the problems of the ’60s and ’70s.” He was arguably the least liberal candidate (except for Clinton, who outliberaled everyone on women’s issues) in the primaries, and sold himself as a visionary. That’s one explanation for his silence on FISA: visionaries lead by overarching example, they don’t soil themselves by getting down in the dirt on specific issues. Apparently the dust interferes with their vision. If you wanted that kind of a fighter, you should have supported John Edwards or Chris Dodd.

    Obama does have a difficult job right now, though; it’s uniting the Party after the Clintons tore it apart with that quarter-of-a-year too long primary ordeal. To do that, he needs to make peace with the very factions supporting the FISA sellout. Thus my comment that Clinton would be more useful on this than Obama. But don’t hold your breath.

    Obama’s big plus is that he’s intelligent and capable of maturing. He’s light years better than anyone the Republicans can put up, or any independent (voting for third party candidates is the same as voting for Republicans), so go ahead and support him, but remember who and where he is and don’t expect miracles, like issue by issue leadership. (The fiend in me says he should hire Edwards as a point man, so he can continue co-opting his issues, and thus have a direction.)

  • I called my two Democratic Senators this morning to urge them to vote against the FISA amendments act. The Senator said blah blah blah, in the past the Senator blah blah blah… and the Senator blah blah blah… But could I get a statement from either office that they will honor the oath they took to defend the constitution and vote no on this bill? NO!

    We kid ourselves when we think more Democrats in office will make a P_big_ difference. Re member we put them in power in 2006 to end the war and we now have more troops and hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the war. Obama has shown us on this FISA bill that he is, in essence, just another corporate hack.

    I’m close to retirement so I’ll vote to protect my social security and medicare but I have no great expectations from the Democrats for the future. This country’s two political party system is slowly destroying this democracy.

  • Obama realizes that in order to change, there must be compromise. Look at Bush’s stiff-necked sledgehammer changes to policy that have cheese-grated our civil liberties through “signing statements”. IS Obama perfect? No , but he’ll be light years better for this country than Bush or McCain could ever hope to be.

  • So let me get this straight:

    If a Republican Senator whispers “fiibuster” Reid shelves a bill and doesn’t force them to actually filibuster.

    Four Democratic Senators vow to filibuster and he brings the bill the floor.

    Am I missing anything here?

  • No #25 you are not missing anything. You are on the edge of deducing that the two parties serve the same masters.

  • #24 So this is where were at? We should be grateful that a candidate willing to give up the 4th amendment as a political “compromise” is better than the other guy.

    Obama took an oath of office that requires him to defend the constitution!!!

  • To Jim:
    When the Republicans threaten to fillibuster, they have at least 41 votes to block cloture.
    If the Democrats can’t get 41 votes to block cloture, there is no fillibuster.

  • That’s one explanation for his silence on FISA… -ericfree

    This meme continues to be repeated and therefore so must the truth be repeated: Obama has not been silent on this FISA bill or retroactive immunity. I may disagree with his position on the bill, but that doesn’t mean he’s been silent. He has spoken of immunity in the past and released a statement concerning this incarnation of the FISA bill just last Friday.

  • Let’s all get some perspective on this. The bill isn’t going anywhere. It’s just meant to make democrats look bad. That and they have to at least try on behalf of their corporate sponsers who really care about getting sued. I can’t imagine for one minute that the Repuglicans will let a democratic president have the powers that Bush coopted. They will want him hog-tied and lame.

  • doubtful: Agreed. My statement was relative, what he’s done as opposed to what some of the posters here would like to see him do. He’s always been good on constitutional issues; he neatly co-opted habeas corpus, which was one of Dodd’s major issues, without objection from Dodd. But there’s a difference between making a speech and cutting off a campaign to return to Washington and threaten a filibuster, then doing the same thing six months later, as Dodd has done. I give Obama credit, but also wish for more action. I just think it’s unrealistic to expect it.

  • Chris Dodd just keeps impressing me more and more. I sent him an email today thanking him for his work and his vertebrae.

    I keep finding myself unable to work up the motivation to contact Obama because I have absolutely no hope that he’s going to come through on this, but that’s self-defeating and I will overcome it, goddammit.

  • I REALLY,REALLY think this stinks.this wire-tapping has been found and ruled to be ILLEGAL,not to mention un-constitutional.if this goes through,i for one am through with the Democratic party.most of Congress doesn’t even know what they are granting immunity for! It is crazy to even think of this,but i guessbush&his cronies trump the law again.and probaly will get away with their iimoral behaviour.

    • Comments are closed.