dc_dux, the democratic house leadership capitulated, the republicans are laughing at them.....
Now, the "vote" on the house bill is rushed, the vote will take place 24 hours after the bill was printed....just the way the patriot act was rammed down the throats of congressmen in 2001....rushed, hushed, no time for debate, only one hour is scheduled before the vote takes place later this afternoon, no time for hearings or public feedack. At least the patriot act included a 5 year sunset provision.
I don't want to be right..... ratbastid has stayed away when I've criticized Obama as an approved candidate of the powerful people who engage in the very practices and agendas Obama is supposedly vowing to reform if he is elected. Obama and the house and senate majority leadership are complicit with and further empowering the criminal president whose policies and abuses they've claimed to oppose.
All of them are, by their actions, my political opponents....
With Nomination Clinched, Obama Now Free To Be Horrifying Scumbag
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002364.html
Link to 15 pages of Obama supporters defending his campaign's strategy of limiting access of the press covering him on the campaign trail:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_108094.html
I would have much preferred that he had made himself available to the representatives of the press who cover him, on thursday afternoon or evening, to show some leadership by disclosing his vehement objection to the imminent attack on our constitutional rights, negotiated by Hoyer and approved by Pelosi, that will take place via a house vote on FISA "reform" on friday. Why would Obama do anything but caefully control his image and access of the press, by strictly limiting it, with a "fan base" like those commenting on the pages accessed at the above link?
How many times have I hammered Bush for giving a secret speech to a CNP audience in San Antonio during his 1999 presidential campaign?
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us...Lw&oref=slogin
...But such efforts at times appear to conflict with the candidate’s stated desire to be unusually transparent and open, and they have already occasionally put him at loggerheads with news organizations pushing for greater access to him now that he is the presumptive nominee.
In spirited discussions with reporters barred from Monday’s meeting with African-American civic leaders, aides said that no cameras were allowed because the participants wanted the meeting to be private, even though it was announced on the daily hotel roster of events. Later, other aides said the lighting was not properly set up for television quality.
When Mr. Obama met with religious leaders last week, his campaign kept out photographers and reporters and refused to share a full list of participants.
Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative constitutional scholar at Pepperdine Law School, said Mr. Obama told him and others in attendance that he was keeping the meeting private so everyone could speak without fear of public judgment.
“He said, ‘I want the terms and conditions of the meeting to be such that anybody feels free to ask me anything in as challenging a way as they’d wish to,’ ” Mr. Kmiec said, adding that guests who wanted to avoid reporters were directed to a special exit...
|
Note that Hoyer and Pelosi have rushed this through for a vote so quickly that opponents won't have time to spend the grassroots fundraising proceeds on targeted ads intended to discourage key blue dog democrats from voting for it's passage.
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/wa...in&oref=slogin
Deal Reached in Congress to Rewrite Rules on Wiretapping
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 20, 2008
....The agreement would settle one of the thorniest issues in dispute by providing immunity to the phone companies in the Sept. 11 program as long as a federal district court determines that they received legitimate requests from the government directing their participation in the warrantless wiretapping operation.
With some AT&T and other telecommunications companies now facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”
“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence.
The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.
The White House immediately endorsed the proposal, which is likely to be voted on in the House on Friday and in the Senate next week.....
|
Nancy Pelosi speaks positively, thursday, of the bill and of Hoyer's "efforts":
Quote:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...comment-500393
....Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. But I have to say this about it: it's an improvement over the Senate bill and I say that as a strong statement. The Senate bill is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This bill improves upon the Senate bill. . . .
And it is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. It has a strong language in terms of an Inspector General to investigate how the law has been used, is being used, will be used.
So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I'm sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support.
I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way.......
|
House republicans and the Bush admin. used the same tactic....a vote before the ink was even dry on the pages of the printed bill, just after 9/11:
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63
A NATION CHALLENGED: CONGRESS; House Passes Terrorism Bill Much Like Senate's, but With 5-Year Limit
By ROBIN TONER AND NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: October 13, 2001
The House of Representatives approved legislation today to give the government broad new powers for the wiretapping, surveillance and investigation of terrorism suspects.
But, in recognition of many lawmakers' fears of the potential for government overreaching and abuse, the House also included a five-year limit after which many of those powers would expire.
Passage of the bill, by a vote of 337 to 79, was the climax of a remarkable 18-hour period in which both the House and the Senate adopted complex, far-reaching antiterrorism legislation with little debate in an atmosphere of edgy alarm, as federal law enforcement officials warned that another attack could be imminent. Many lawmakers said it had been impossible to truly debate, or even read, the legislation that passed today.
Civil liberties advocates implored Congress to slow down and consider the legislation's impact, which they said could be a dangerous infringement on Americans' privacy and constitutional rights. But the drive to send an antiterrorism bill to the president -- it was called the Patriot Act in the House, the U.S.A. Act in the Senate -- was strong. With lopsided votes in both houses, enactment of the measure, perhaps in a matter of days, is now seen as a fait accompli.
The bill passed by the House is essentially the legislation approved by the Senate on Thursday night, although with a few key changes, including the five-year sunset provision. It was the product of last-minute negotiations between top House Republicans and the Bush administration, and was suddenly substituted this morning for a more cautious antiterrorism bill that had strong bipartisan support. Many Democrats were furious, and even some Republicans voiced dismay.....
|