FISA just passed the House

[Elfdart]

All Obama had to do was use his position as the nominee to call this bill what it is: a fascist police state measure, and that would have been the end of it. If the Democowards don't have the guts to stand up to a retarded chimp in the White House with an approval rating comparable to head lice, then when are they going to grow a pair?

Digby over at Hullabaloo thinks we just got:

Sistah Soljah'd ?

by digby

There's lots of blogospheric angst today, and for good reason, around this FISA legislation. Senator Obama's commitment to support the "compromise,"(while promising to "work" to remove the offensive telcom immunity) is a big disappointment to many.

I am tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment, wherein Barack makes it clear to the Villagers that he is not one of the DFH's, despite all their ardent support. Nothing is more associated with us than this issue. It may even make sense on some sort of abstract level. He's obviously decided that he has to run to the right pretty hard to counteract that "most liberal Senator" label.

But, I actually have no idea what his motivation is any more than the rest of the Democrats, who seem stuck in some 2004 time warp, fighting the battle of Fallujah with Don Rumsfeld. He may genuinely think the legislation is good or just be afraid that the Republicans will use it against him. (I don't think that's going to help frankly --- he voted against it last time and that's all they need for the scare ads.) He does say that if he wins, he promises not to abuse the power it gives him, so I guess we should feel good about that.

I do know this: they would not have made this "compromise" and then brought this to the floor without his ok, and probably without his direction. He is the leader of the Democratic Party now, in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign. If he didn't come to them and say to get this thing done before the fall, then they came to him and asked his permission. That's just a fact. They aren't going to do anything he doesn't want them to do.

So, it's not really a capitulation. It's a strategy.

Sadly No! sums it up better:



I think there's a kind of Stockholm Syndrome at work here, where Democrats seem to enjoy having Republitards shit all over them. That's why they knuckle under so easily. It's the one type of behavior guaranteed to attract more bullying and abuse. If they actually stood up to the GOP the constant bitch-slapping might end -and we can't have that, now can we?

[Elfdart]

Anyone who wants to know why Pelosi was so eager to give immunity to the phone companies can find the answer here:

LINK

Pelosi, who is married to investor Paul Pelosi, has amassed a large portfolio of jointly owned real estate, including three properties in the Napa Valley. They sold an 8-acre vineyard on Skellenger Lane in Rutherford last year for $1 million to $5 million, according to her disclosure form.

Paul Pelosi's holdings include a four-story commercial building on Belden Place in San Francisco, a retail and office building on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in San Anselmo and an ownership stake in the Auberge du Soleil resort in Napa Valley valued at $1 million to $5 million. He also has millions of dollars of shares in publicly traded companies such as Microsoft, Amazon. com and AT&T.

Cute, no?

[SirNitram]

No surprise. The amount of money pouring into the pocketbooks of select Dems since their takeover, at least from the telcoms, leapt from the previously 'Insane' levels to 'Flat out bribery' levels.

Interesting thing I noticed, though, when I actually looked over Senator Obama's comments. Notice what was not said:

Anything about criminal investigations. Sure, civils might get removed by this. But Obama has taken the rare, possibly unique stance of actually looking to see if his would-be predecessor acted illegally. Most just wave it off as 'The past'. So we remain at the strange state of 'I Don't Know'.

Next the Senate, and Dodd, Feingold, and Reid...

[Durandal]

One theory I read and that personally I'm beginning to believe is that the immunity provision isn't there to protect the Telecoms, but to protect the leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

It's perfectly plausible that GWB notified the Democratic leadership of what he was doing at one point and they chose to remain silent.
If that is proven to be true, at best it's politically damaging to Pelosi, Reid, etc. and at worst it makes them accomplices.

By killing off these suits, they prevent any information coming out during the discovery process and thus protecting themselves.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories either, but I have to admit, this particular explanation holds water. Honestly, where are the telcos in all this? They're keeping their damn mouths shut. No commercials from AT&T talking about how the looming lawsuits are unfair. No press releases defending their actions. Nothing. They don't even try.

The people who've been so adamant about this idiotic immunity have been the Republicans. Now, apparently, the Democrats have started giving a shit for some reason. And the telcos aren't a pack of idiots; they would have never done anything like this unless they had written assurances from the attorney general that it was legal. That's really all they need to cover their asses.

The people worried about these lawsuits are the crooked lawmakers who knew about this travesty and did nothing to stop it. When civil suits come up against the likes of AT&T regarding warrantless wiretapping, the discovery phase will bring out a very interesting list of names. That's when all the cockroaches will scatter.