Reid on stump in Pahrump

A group favoring House Bill HR 676 staked its claim along Highway 160.

HR 676, is the National Health Insurance Act, introduced by Congressman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., who represents Detroit. Conyers' Web site states the bill's purpose is "to ensure that every American, regardless of income, employment status, or race, has access to quality, affordable health care services."

According to organizer Margery Kay Behrens, who has lived in Pahrump for 15 years, "Organizing for America has requested our presence to greet Harry Reid and the tea baggers with signs, banners and 'tea'-shirts in support of HR 676, single-payer health care."

 Read more…

This stimulus act isn’t all it should be, maybe five-eighths of a loaf, but it is better on close examination than first appearance and media reports had suggested.

Oh, Harry, Harry, Harry...

Reid told reporters in Las Vegas on Tuesday that New York “has a history of sending stars to the Senate.” He cited Kennedy’s late uncle, Robert Kennedy, and Clinton as examples.

Um, Harry, those two actually RAN for the office. They didn't jump to the front of the line.

(Cross-posted at Blue Lyon)

Scum. Primary challenges needed:

Some House Democrats were prepared to support immunity, regardless. In a Jan. 28 letter, 21 Democrats in the conservative Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., supporting [retroactive] immunity and listing other provisions that they believed were needed in a FISA bill.

They wrote that the Senate bill “contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change.”

Meanwhile, Steny Hoyer says:

Okay, maybe it's only one cheer.

A provisional cheer at that, although I'm inclined to make that two provisional cheers.

What I'd like to suggest, no doubt to the consternation of most readers, is that Reid's decision to pull the FISA bill Monday evening was pretty much what Reid had in mind the whole time.

What I'm sure of is that the many comments I've read that characterize what happened on the Senate floor on Monday as Reid having been forced to pull the bill by Chris Dodd's threat of a filibuster simply don't match what I saw, via C-Span's live streaming.

Before I proceed, let me make clear that I wish to take nothing from Chris Dodd's role here. He deserves all of the praise he's getting and then some.

His speeches on the Senate floor were magisterial. I've been watching him for more years than most of you and I have never seen him so compelling. And yes, it counts that he left his campaign in Idaho to come back and lead the opposition to a version of the Senate bill that was inadequate to the task of restoring the good sense, the respect for civil liberties and constitutional government, that had fueled the passage of the first FISA legislation in the late 1970s.

As Dodd graciously acknowledges in the video Lambert has posted here, many Democrats contributed to the sense I had, watching the debate on Monday, that I was not looking at a dispirited, disunited, frightened caucus, without a clue about how to oppose the policy of obdurate obstructionism employed so successfully in the past six months by the Bush administration and its enablers in the Republican Senate caucus.

Democrats were on the attack, making compelling, easy-to-understand arguments that have wide-spread appeal among a majority of Americans, and they were ready and able to shoot down the lies and prevarications employed by key Republicans, like Orrin Hatch. Most important, the list of Democratic contributors to this success was long and varied, and included Harry Reid.

CD updating the update to reflect the latest news: Reid has pulled the bill.

Well, we're into it - a full-throated Senate debate on many of the dearest, in all senses of that word, fundamentals of constitutional government,

The opening, as Lambert has suggested, was a bit confusing.

Dodd gave a passionate analysis of the many strands of this new FISA legislation, meant, mainly on the Democratic side, to correct the excesses of last August's Protect America Act, which more or less gutted the FISA court as a check on the power of the executive branch to secretly ignore the civil liberties of Americans not to be spied upon by their own government.

To talk process for a moment, the thrust of Dodd's first speech was in support of the many and profound reasons why the Senate should not proceed on the matter at hand as long as the Intelligence Committee's version is the basis of the debate and the subsequent voting on the entire issue. In other words, he was arguing against the imposition of cloture, so that the Senate might spend time debating the merits of substituting the Judiciary Bill as the basis for debate and amendment.

It didn't look or sound to me like this was Dodd's attempt to get a genuine filibuster going, and indeed, the vote was lopsided in favor of cloture, all Republicans voting yes, only ten Democrats voting no.

This is not the end of the debate by any means, though, and from what I've seen thus far, do not despair that passage of the Intelligence Committee's version of this new FISA bill is a done deal, including the extending of amnesty to those Telecoms which choose to go along with the administration. Here's why:

Via TPM, Reid's statement on FISA in full:

“I will shortly move to proceed to S 2248, the FISA Improvement Act of 2007. I spoke briefly on this subject earlier, but I want to provide a more complete explanation of the process by which the Senate will consider this important bill. Earlier this year, the Director of National Intelligence came to Congress and alerted us to what he described as a significant gap that had emerged in our nation’s foreign intelligence gathering capacity.

“Members on both sides of the aisle – and from all sides of this important debate – became convinced [became stampeded before the August recess] that this problem was real, and that we had an obligation to address it [because otherwise David Broder might say bad things]. Although we may differ on the solutions required, all Senators – both Democrats and Republicans [no, they don't] – want to ensure that intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep our country as safe as possible. We worked in good faith with the Administration through July and August to provide those tools in a way that protects the privacy and liberties of law-abiding Americans. Unfortunately, the final bill signed by President Bush fell well short of that goal. [Nice use of passive voice.]

Yeah, and how'd that happen?

“Many other Democrats and I [ineffectually] opposed the so-called Protect America Act [before passing a Republican bill, at midnight, before blowing town on vacation]. That’s why we made sure that it had a six-month sunset so that we could come back to do a better job of ensuring judicial and congressional oversight of these sensitive activities.

As my colleagues know, the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees share jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Both Committees have worked diligently over the past few months, this hard work has resulted in two different versions of legislation to improve FISA – S. 2248 – reported out of the Committees. I consulted extensively with Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Leahy about the best way for the Senate to consider this subject.

“I have determined that in this situation, it would be wrong of me to simply choose one committee’s bill over the other.

But that's what you did! You made the Intel bill the base text! That's choosing one bill Why?! Read on:

I personally favor many of the additional protections included in the Judiciary Committee bill, and I oppose the concept of retroactive immunity in the Intelligence bill. But I cannot ignore the fact that the Intelligence bill was reported favorably by a vote of 13-2, with most Democrats on the committee supporting that approach. I explored the possibility of putting before the Senate a bill that included elements of both two committee bills. Earlier this week, I used Senate Rule 14 to place two bills on the calendar.

But if the issues are Constitutional, then a 100-1 vote on Intel shouldn't matter, since that's the field in which the Judiciary Committee is expert. So, the real point here is that Reid buys into the frame that intelligence issues are primary, and that Constitutional issues are secondary. That just pins my bogometer. And what does any of that have to do with retroactive immunity for the telcos, pray tell?

“The first – S. 2440 – consists of Titles I and III of the Intelligence bill, but did not include Title II on retroactive immunity. The second bill – S. 2441 – consists of Title I of the Intelligence bill and Titles II and III of the Judiciary bill. But after consulting further with Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Leahy, a consensus emerged [Cue tiny violin playing The Theme From Process Dodge! Nice use of passive voice, too] among the three of us that the best way to proceed would be by regular order. Both Chairmen agreed with this approach.

“Under regular order, and the rules of the Senate governing sequential referral, I will move to proceed to S. 2248 – the bill reported by each committee. When that motion to proceed is adopted, the work of both committees will be before the Senate. Because of the order in which they considered the bill, [And how did that happen?] the Intelligence Committee version will be the base text, and the Judiciary Committee version will be automatically pending as a substitute amendment.

[Reach me that bucket, wouldja hon?]

“In the weeks since the two committees acted, Senators Rockefeller and Leahy have been working hard to narrow the difference between their two versions of the bill. The ranking Republicans, Senators Bond and Specter, have been included in many of these conversations. I expect that when we begin debate on the bill, there will be amendments to incorporate many of the Judiciary Committee provisions into the Intelligence Committee text.

“In my view, that will make the final product stronger. There is one issue that cannot be resolved through informal negotiation. As some are aware, the Intelligence Committee’s bill provides the telephone companies with retroactive immunity from lawsuits filed by their customers for privacy violations. Many members, myself included, believe that such a grant of immunity is unwise. I expect there will be a full debate on this subject next week.

“Senators Specter, Feinstein, Whitehouse and others are working to craft a compromise that might give the phone companies some relief [that is, the risk the telcos took in breaking the law would be socialized, and the taxpayers would pick up the tab] – but allow the lawsuits to go forward in a manner that would preserve accountability.

And now the part that's threatening my cranial integrity.

In one way or another, we must ensure that President Bush is held accountable for his actions. It is important for the Senate to complete work on this bill next week to allow time for the Senate and House to produce a final bill. Our ultimate goal is a bill that commands broad bipartisan support in the Congress and in the country. The process I just outlined offers us the best opportunity to do so.”

Anybody see a flaw in this reasoning?  Read more…

[Will Clinton, Obama, and Biden help Dodd filibuster? As they promised?]

Reid's actively working to give retroactive immunity to the telcos. And lying about it. Glenn:

The summarized version is that there were two competing bills which Reid could have brought to the floor -- the Senate Intelligence Committee version engineered by Jay Rockefeller and Dick Cheney which gives the administration most of what it wants, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does not contain telecom amnesty and contains far more extensive oversight protections. Reid could have brought the bill to the floor using whatever process he wanted, and he has decided -- contrary to weeks of assurances -- that the SIC bill will serve as the "base" bill, meaning that improving it (by removing amnesty and increasing oversight) will require 60 votes, rendering such efforts virtually impossible. In doing so, Reid is brazenly ignoring the demands of 14 Senators -- including all of the Democratic presidential candidates -- to have the Judiciary Committee bill be the base bill.

Worse still, Reid is completely disregarding the "hold" placed by Chris Dodd on any amnesty bill -- simply refusing to honor it, even as he respectfully honors literally scores of "holds" from GOP Senators such as Tom Coburn. And while Dodd is interrupting his campaigning to fly to Washington to lead the filibuster he vowed, Reid has ensured with scheduling manuevers that the filibuster will take place only over the weekend -- when all of the members are away raising money anyway and journalists aren't paying attention -- with the intent to try to force cloture once everyone returns on Monday.

Harry, Nancy: Nice work. And Booman:

I'm no Villager, but it struck me there might be more than a few Beltway dog whistles in the following little story by Carl Hulse in the Times:

Fearing that President Bush would again use a Congressional recess to install disputed executive branch appointees without Senate confirmation, Democrats convened the Senate for the first of four microsessions to be held during the holiday break, precisely to thwart such an end run.

“I am glad to see the leadership stepped up here,” said Jim Webb, the junior senator from Virginia, called upon by the majority to open the Senate with a skeleton staff for the express purpose of immediately closing it down.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, chose to schedule the so-called pro forma sessions because Mr. Bush took advantage of past recesses to install nominees including John R. Bolton, as ambassador to the United Nations, and, most recently, Sam Fox, a donor to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as ambassador to Belgium. This time, Democrats were particularly suspicious of plans to appoint as surgeon general a nominee they oppose.

“This is the first time that pro formas have been used to block recess appointments,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid.

Mr. Reid said he would be willing to consider some of the president’s more contentious nominees as long as the White House moved forward with Democratic choices for regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Excellent. Now Reid should go ahead and block everything. The Republicans are; why shouldn't we? Tit-for-tat is a highly successful strategy, after all, even though so far the Democrats have applied it only to members of their own caucus, and their base.

Anyhow, the possible dog-whistles:

Gallup, via USA Today:

Meanwhile, Bush reached an unwelcome [Oh? To whom] record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

Of course, during the Nixon era, people had some outlet, because the Democrats held Nixon accountable for his crimes, instead of caving and capitulating and granting him and his retroactive immunity. Yeah, Ford pardoned Nixon, but with the Beltway Dems, Bush's pardon is pre-approved!

Every Congressional session should have a name, and "the im[p|m]unity congress" seems especially appropriate for this one. From the telcos to torture, it seems like any high crime the Republicans commit, Integritudinous Harry and Leader Nance are willing--nay, eager--to cut them some slack, given them a break, grant them immunity for it, and let them skate.

Via the essential Avedon, this Ed Schluz interview with Harry Reid:

Mega-kudos to Schultz for getting Reid to admit that he could - even single-handedly - keep the Iraq funding bill off the floor and thereby end the war, even without 60 votes. So why won't he?

Here's the audio courtesy of TheBlueHighwayMan.

Schultz: But Senator don't you have the power to say you're not going to get the money even without 60 votes?

Reid: Sure we have the power on anything to stop the money, that's what it's all about, that's why we have three separate branches of government.

But the thing we have to do is make sure we do it the right way. It's not a question of all or nothing, it's a question of making sure we do the right thing.

What Feingold and I have pushed and we're going to continue to do that... get all the troops to start redeploying immediately, get all the troops out of there by June except those needed for counterterrorism, protecting our assets we have there, and a limited force for training Iraqis. That's what Fenigold and I believe should happen, we're going to continue to push that. The majority of the Democrats support it, but not all the Democrats.

Schultz: But you could say we're not bringing this to the floor, the funding's over, correct?

Reid [very slowly]: Yes, we could do that, yes.

When you listen to Reid here, it's as though he never once thought about his power to keep Iraq funding off the floor.

Schultz: Why don't you do that, the American people want you to do that?

Reid: Ed, it's a situation where we have to do what is right... I say that Feingold and Reid are right. We say there should be immediate redeployment, set a deadline that everybody should be out except a limited number. That means they're gonna have to have some money... the troops there fighting counterterrorism, which we need, that is going to be some money, we have to do that.

But if Reid truly believes in keeping some troops in Iraq for counter-terrorism, he is making a huge strategic mistake, one Bush would never do - he's negotiating with himself.

Bingo. Let Bush do the negotiating.

Over at the crack den, a commenter nominated Harry Reid for wanker of the day. His crime?

Former Colorado parks director Lyle Laverty's confirmation to a top post in the U.S. Interior Department was pushed through the Senate on Monday while a member blocking the vote was home tending to his wife and newborn twins.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., for seven months had opposed Laverty's confirmation as assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, demanding that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne address ethical lapses within the department.

On Friday, Wyden's wife gave birth to twins, and the senator was in Oregon on paternity leave Monday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scheduled the vote.

[Welcome, acolytes of the famously lingeried one. But move along! Move along! There's no story here.]

Gosh, how odd. Or not.

Because you'd think this story has everything: Dodd, alone among the Democrats, stands up to a Bipartisan juggernaut to grant the telcos retroactive immunity for massive lawbreaking--a story the Times itself broke--by saying he'll put a hold on the bill. Reid, the Senate [cough] leader, says he'll ignore the hold. Dodd raises the ante, says he'll [gasp] filibuster. Biden joins in. Hillary and Obama waver on the sidelines.

We've got the Jimmy Stewart figure, standing alone against great odds. We've got dissension in the Democratic caucus. We've got craven politicians. We've got bags of corporate cash.

In short, we've got a rich, compelling narrative, filled with drama, human failings, and high principle.

And if all that's not enough, Dodd's from the Time's circulation catchment: Connecticut. What, the locals aren't interested in their Senator?

So, you'd think the Times would be all over this; or at least give it a paragraph in the Week in Review.

But n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! I wonder why not?

I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, wondering (praying, if I did pray) that it would, and now it has. (Beltway Dems? Hillary and Obama staffers? I've included a helpful diagram at left, that shows the difference between Dodd and you.)

Amping up his efforts to block the Senate FISA bill containing retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, Senator Chris Dodd's campaign says that he will filibuster the measure if the Dem Senate leadership tries to circumvent the hold he plans to put on the bill.

Dodd's filibuster threat comes in response to reports -- based on anonymous quotes from the leadership's office -- which said that Reid's aides think they can get the bill to the floor despite Dodd's hold.

(See here for my dialog with Reid's office.)

Will Dodd's efforts be enough to break the trad press blackout on this issue?

We can't know 'til we try.

Meanwhile, reward good behavior here or here:

Chris Dodd for President

PO Box 51882

Washington, DC 20091

Of course, Senator Reid's office could make all this go away very easily, simply by saying that he'll follow precedent in this matter, and respect Dodd's hold.  Read more…

Oh, Harry. This is really bad. As FDL points out. Say it's not so!

Harry, Nance, nice work on that leader thing. I'm proud of you. WaPo:

Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.

Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers. [Shystee's Process Dodge]

Unbelievable? All too believable.

Since the Reptilicans in the Senate are now filibustering literally everything, 60 votes to get anything done is now the new and--according to our famously free press--entirely unremarkable norm. Who's responsible?

FDL's scarecrow:

Under the Constitution, all appropriation bills must arise in the House. No monies can be appropriated for any federally funded project — including earmarks or “pork” — unless authorized by bills initiated or approved in the Democratic House. That’s power. But I haven’t heard a peep from Republicans complaining about their pet projects being held up.

Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has explained why the Democratic leadership cannot use the power of the majority to more carefully control what does and does not emerge from the House and Senate.

Bingo.

On confirming Abu G's replacement:

Are we going to get the kumbaya-singing, navel-gazing Harry Reid who managed to pass the Republican FISA bill gutting the Constitution, or are we going to get the Harry Reid who didn't compromise or triangulate on Social Security, and who schooled Bil Frist in the dark arts of Senatorial leadership?*

Harry Krishna, or Dirty Harry?

Time will tell. Doveryai no proveryai:

"Ted Theodore** Olson will not be confirmed," Reid, D-Nev., said in a written statement. "I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."

Winning "bruising confirmation battle" would juice the Dems up some, no question.

As usual, The Shrill One nails it (TS):

Snow Job in the Desert
In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual evidence, just pictures of buildings with big arrows pointing at them saying things like “Chemical Munitions Bunker.” But many people in the political and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he said it, they believed it.

Mr. Powell’s masters got the war they wanted, and it soon became apparent that none of his assertions had been true.

Until recently I assumed that the failure to find W.M.D., followed by years of false claims of progress in Iraq, would make a repeat of the snow job that sold the war impossible. But I was wrong. The administration, this time relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had remarkable [Oh?] success creating the perception that the “surge” is succeeding, even though there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is.

Read the rest of the story for the depressing details of the regime's PR blitzkreig.

But there is one obvious question:

A little more vintage 2006 Newsweek. Plowing through their article on the bureaucratic infighting surrounding the regime's various enabling laws on torture and warrantless surveillance, this sentence jumped out, though unsourced:

Reasoning that there was no time to obtain warrants from a secret court set up under FISA (a sometimes cumbersome process), the Bush administration justified going around the law by invoking a post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing use of force against global terror. The eavesdropping program was very closely held, with cryptic briefings for only a few congressional leaders.

Hmmm.... Who were these "few" congressional leaders, one wonders?

Gallup:

A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

There was a slight interruption in the downward trend in congressional approval ratings at the beginning of this year when party control changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats following last fall's midterm elections. In January 2007, 35% of Americans approved of Congress, a significant increase from the 21% who approved of Congress in December 2006.

But that "honeymoon" period for the new Democratically controlled Congress was brief, as its job ratings dropped below 30% in March 2007 and have now fallen below where they were just before the Democrats took over.

Harry, Nancy: Nice work. I knew you could do it. I'm proud of you.

Our famously free press will try to spin this as the product of a lack of teh Bipartisan and the need for unity and "they're all the same" but I think there's a much simpler and more basic explanation:

Regarding the FISA betrayal, The Grey Lord writes:

Not Worth It
As I've suggested before, there's little value in expending any effort supporting a Democratic leadership this incompetent. I'm not the most negative of the dirty hippie bloggers, but we all have our lines. Not that my mighty blog is all powerful in the grand scheme of things, but there are more important thing to focus on at the moment. Happy to readjust my views when given a reason to do so.

Bingo.

Just one question, though:

Balloon Juice does a close reading of the text:

Starting off, Marty Lederman has explained the limitations of the six-month “sunset” clause much better than I did a few days ago:

Although section 6© provides that the operative provisions of the Act “shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,” i.e., on February 1, 2008, there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:

AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT.—Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Thus, “acquisitions” authorized by Attorney General Gonzales will be permissible for one year, even if that period extends beyond the ostensible February 1, 2008 sunset date. I think it’s fair to assume that the Attorney General will authorize a system of such acquisitions on or close to February 1, 2008, which will mean that the warrantless surveillance can continue until . . . February 1, 2009, or twelve days after the next President is sworn in.

Oh gawd, it's worse than I thought again. Balloon Juice summarizes the awfulness and gives a highly relevant scenario:

An interesting story in the Times today:

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches [cavity? DNA?] of American citizens and the collection of their business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said [having actually read the law, finally].

Harry, Nancy: Nice work all around. But I'm sure that no significant damage to our liberties can possibly be done in the six months until the law is sunsetted, even with a massive datamining operation, the cooperation of the telcos and gawd knows who else, and a mandate to store such captured data forever (see, e.g. this post at "shall retain." "Shall" means "not optional.")

Administration officials acknowledged they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently [bogus "balancing" Republican reassurances deleted in the interests of cranial integrity]...

"Recently?" But not when the law was passed?** Hmmm.... Why would that be, do you think?