On FISA cloture, Clinton NAY, Obama YEA. NAY is correct.
On the FISA bill, Clinton NAY, Obama YEA. NAY is correct.
Just sayin. Thanks, guys. Well done, all. Mile High Stadium, here we come!
And Uncle Harry n Uncle Barry n Aunt Nance are gonna to come by tomorrow and show me the secret places where my pony's wires really tap LOL!!!!!!
I'm so happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UDPATE Here's the rec'd diary at Cheetopia. Hilarity ensues. Hey, remember when Obama was going to be "transformative"? Now the OFB are all nodding sagely and saying, "Yep, just politics. The votes just weren't there." Of course, leaders lead, as Atrios used to be fond of saying.
UPDATE Oops, I almost forget to say shut the Fuck up and send Obama more money. Sorry.
UPDATE Good guy Peter Daou sends Hillary's statement. Quoted in relevant part:
While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.
But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.
What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.
Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.
That's just silly. Checks and balances aren't what "set us apart." What sets us apart is having a Leader!