You are one of the most negative posters on this site!  Don't you ever have anything positive to say?  Is the glass EVER half full, man?

I happen to think that my party can do a hell of a lot better job than it does.  But if this vote doesn't bother you, cool.  We all have different priorities.

This makes it very unlikely that I could vote for Jim Webb for re-election. This bill is a travesty.

I know that's a big statement to make (re: Webb and re-election), but I'll write a diary why in the near future to further explain why I feel so strongly about this.

You'll ignore his re-election campaign because Webb and yourself disagree on a few key issues, and let somebody else in, a Republican, who disagrees with you on ALL key issues?

To me, it's the KEY issue. Fidelity to the Constitution. Without respect for our founding document, everything else is frankly subject to the whim of the king.

I will not be voting for any Republicans any time soon. The Republican party has become the party of authoritarianism, big brother, the fusion of church and state, corporate welfare, and imperialism abroad. They don't appear to be in any hurry to change direction (in fact, they're acclerating down the same path). So I doubt that in 2012, if I'm still a citizen of this great Commonwealth, I'll be voting for any Republicans.

I'm used to having to choose the lesser of two evils in the voting booth. In fact, I just today for the first time in my life in my four Presidential votes got to vote for someone I truly like and admire. If the Republicans nominate another George Allen in 2012 and Virginia is still a purplish state, I'd have to think hard about what I'd do. But as of right now, I would sit the election out. I'm that dismayed. We can do better than Democrats willing to sell out the 4th Amendment, separation of powers, the prohibition against ex post facto legislation, and the rule of law.  

So you'll sit out and let a Radical-Right Republican, who also disagrees with you on this KEY issue, plus many more non-key ones, beat Senator Webb? Right.  Sorry, I don't buy the argument.

This is why EVERY candidate should have at least one primary challenger.  

I completely agree with you that a radical right winger is far worse than a Dem I agree with half the time.  But I'd rather have a Dem I agree with 75% or 90% of the time than one I agree with half the time.  And the only way for each of us to have that say is to have every candidate face one or more primary challengers.

What if you're 90% Dem can't beat a tough GOP challenger?  Harris Miller certainly would've been more liberal.  And George Allen would've walked all over him, and we'd be facing the possibility of an Allen Presidency.  

I think Webb is doing a good job.  Is he perfect?  No.  But I still think he is one of the better Senators up there.

Go back and read the diaries from 2006.  That guy openly $$$upported some unsavory GOPers in various elections...not to mention many other things that made him far less attractive thatn Jim Webb.    

I am in complete agreement with what you said.  Think of my previous comment as support.

You're certainly right about that in some circumstances - strategic voting sometimes trumps voting for one's own ideals.  But if that is the case, then the real question is why aren't more qualified candidates stepping forward?  What's keeping other good people from running?  If we have a choice between a sure loser and someone who can win but we don't like, then we don't have a deep enough pool of candidates.

Regardless, I still stand by my assertion that EVERY candidate should face a primary.  By going through the primary between Webb and Miller we were able to sort out each one's strengths and weaknesses and ultimately a winner was selected.  The point is that all of us went through that process - it was ugly at times but it gave Democrats a real choice instead of just the Republican vs Democrat in November.

Furthermore, if you're arguing for less primaries, then Miller would have been the Democrats choice to go against Allen since Miller was initially the establishment choice.  Webb was the challenger and the primary system worked to our ultimate advantage.

Look, I'm not saying I'll never vote for Webb again.  He's done some really good things and sometimes we do have to take the bad with the good.  But I am saying that he's not perfect and I'd like to see another good Democratic alternative challenge him next time - to give all of us a chance to say not only that we want a Democrat in that seat, but to say if we want to keep this particular Democrat or try with another.

And to your point, electability is certainly one of the issues to be discussed during that primary.

Looking at the extensive list of Senators voting to  "not hold liable" Telecoms who implement technology taps at the DIRECTION of the U.S. Government is not a "Sell Out".

The problem is not with the business entity who on one day is uncovering terrorist conversations and the next day listening in on barbershop gossip. The problem lies with an administration that does not want to follow the legal conventions put in place to limit Government Domestic eavesdropping.

You have to put the blame where it belongs and this bill was not about that. Further how do you get full disclosure in front of a Congressional Inquiry panel if the next day you'll be sued for the actions the Government directed you to take?

It's a fine list of Democrats you've noted .... I don't agree that they SOLD OUT.

I'll grant that it's a popular one.  And really, let me know how that Congressional Inquiry panel goes.  I'm sure we'll get all the nitty gritty details, now.

And I agree that it's a fine list of Democrats - if you're not all that concerned about the rule of law or the Constitution.

between the Government asking to thumb through company records in search of "bad guys" and a purpose driven subpoena in search of something specific.

This does get into a true mess - the government pressuring companies to provide the info.  While some companies may willingly hand it over, most probably faced extreme arm twisting (Google's resistance to turn over porn search records comes to mind - but I believe they eventually capitulated).  There is no doubt the government can put extreme pressure on a company - both above the board and in the shadows.

Much of the blame does not belong with the individual companies (shame on Dubya and friends - but that's nothing new) so allowing them to be sued seems wrong on the surface.  But with this protection, they have even less reason to resist government advances.  I'd much rather see a company fighting tooth and nail to keep its info private out of fear of a lawsuit than to easily give in to a government data mining operation that falls outside the usual rules.  Retroactive immunity is just an extension of this same problem.

For all those cowering at the thought that this means "the terrorists will win" - get a grip.  If the government has a legitimate and specific investigation in which it needs data, it can get it the old fashioned Constitutional way - issue a subpoena.  

Webb has had six months to get this right and still managed to vote the wrong way.  And this time his vacation wasn't even being threatened.

I agree: Webb is a sell-out.

Webb's vote was just plain wrong here. Even leaving aside whether you agree with Telecom immunity or not, the inability of the Democrats to hold the line on this measure is a sign of how pathetic our leadership is on the Hill.

If nothing else, Harry Reid has to go.

As a long-standing Webb crusader, this vote cuts me to the quick.  

I see this as a direct slap in the face against progressivism and the Constitution.  

Even as Webb is talking about legal action against Bush for Iraq, this is a wound that will take a long time to heal.

(1) Senators McCain and Webb voted for corporate interests and an unchecked unitary executive. Perhaps it was worthwhile to elect Webb to send the atavistic George Allen packing, but Webb is becoming a grave disappointment on some important fronts. Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas would make a far better VP candidate if Senator Obama secures the Democratic nomination. Obama has plenty of sage national security experts, including Zbigniew Brzezinski (currently in Syria with a RAND Corporation delegation), on his team.

(2) Senator Obama voted for the Constitution and for respect for the rule of law.

(3) Senator Clinton was simply MIA--not even "present." If she still manages to stumble through to the Democratic nomination, she has just destroyed any remaining possibility of my voting for her.

Did you see this reader's comment over at TPM today?

I actually like the idea of a unitary executive, because it implies that there could be a unitary citizen. I have begun to consider myself a unitary citizen. I am allowed (by virtue of the definition of a unitary executive) to pick and choose the laws I would like to follow, kind of Thoreau like.

I also like the idea of retroactive immunity paired with the unitary citizen. I could decide not to follow a stupid law and then forgive myself afterwards.

But it begins to sound like (horrors) anarchy. Maybe that's what we now have as a form of government: unitary anarchy. I like it. It works for me!

First, I'd like to hear his explanation before wigging out about the thing.  I don't know the exact wording of the amendment, but I see others whom I respect such as Mikulski and McCaskill on this list.  

Second, although I might be extremely disappointed about the vote but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.  I'm well aware that sometimes Webb and others I may have voted for will take positions with which I strongly disagree.  The fact is no one is asking my permission to act and sometimes they're going to act counter to what I may believe is in the best interests of this country or of the Constitution.  But I have to look at overall performance and the reasons behind their actions before hyperventilating and declaring them fascist.  This may well be a compromise which will allow other important parts of the legislation to go forward.

Third, time to be realistic here.  All those people breathing fire about how they'll never vote for Webb again yada yada are just setting themselves up for another Republican in office.  Haven't y'all learned any lessons from watching the Republicans fall on their swords over single issues?  Do you really want to draw your line in the sand on this particular issue and make sweeping generalizations about what must have been a difficult decision on Webb's and the other Democrats' parts because he lacks your level of purity?  I'm a rabid fan of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and really wanted to see the telecoms held responsible for their violations of the law.  But we can't always get what we want.  

by far, at least up to this moment.  Thanks.

I think that there's a difference between policy disagreements on, say, trade, taxation, and the environment, and this issue - one of our fundamental principles of government.  I can easily understand and deal with disagreements about the former.  The latter?  Not so much.

As to the proper response, no, no one is going to be voting Republican over it.  But Webb, and others who fail on basic issues like this, should be made quite aware of how unacceptable it is to their constituents.  It does everyone a disservice to characterize it as "well, you know, we just have different views on the issue, and he/she is otherwise a great Senator."  Fundamental flaws need addressing, not overlooking.

I look forward to Webb's statement, too.  But at this point, his words on the matter shouldn't carry much credibility, I think.

I got this off his Senate website:

Statement of Senator Webb on FISA Passage in Senate

Washington, DC- Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) issued the following statement on the Senate passage of the FISA bill:

"There were a number of measures brought before the Senate today that I believed could have improved the FISA bill which passed overwhelmingly tonight.  This is a complex law. It becomes imperative that we look for ways to both keep our nation safe from further terrorist attacks and ensure that our government's surveillance is conducted in a legal manner that comports with the U.S. Constitution.

"Senators Feingold, Tester and I spent two months working to construct and introduce an amendment designed to add further safeguards against Executive Branch surveillance on innocent Americans. I believe the amendment best answered the call of Americans who have been demanding a proper system of checks and balances for our government's surveillance program. Our amendment regrettably failed this afternoon.

"I also supported two amendments which sought to limit immunity for telephone companies in proper situations.  These amendments would have allowed consumers to move forward with legal action in certain situations, for example where companies have acted in bad faith in aiding government surveillance. Unfortunately, both of these amendments failed as well.

"Our current FISA bill expires in two days. As someone who has decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence, I believed it was necessary to implement a surveillance program that provides professionals an updated set of tools to properly respond to terrorist threats.  However, I plan to urge my colleagues who sit on the Senate-House conference committee to adopt House provisions that better protect Americans from Executive branch overreach."

This isn't about Webb not valuing the Constitution, but about his sense of urgency in acting to protect the country as he sees fit.  It was clear that the legislation would not pass while telecoms remained liable and Webb felt he had to act.  We may disagree with him; we may think the threat is overstated or could still have been dealt with differently, but it is grossly unfair to refer to his actions as a "sell-out."

Assigning monitors to each phone in the US would probably help "protect" the country, too.  I guess my law school really sucked - no one ever taught me about the Constitutional clause that suspended the rest of it whenever someone wanted to  "protect country as he sees fit."

He sold Americans out.  Your need to be an apologist for his failure here is something I don't understand, esp. in light of your claim to be a "rabid fan of the Constitution and Bill of Rights."  Rabid fans would stick to the principles, instead of the men.

 

could be making collect calls in the crawl space of your house right now.  If the telephone companies weren't willing to just hand over a giant stream of data so that the federal government could dig for a needle in a hay stack, why we might never discover that the call is coming from inside your house! =)

We are fighting a group of people that hate freedom and use it to undermine us and destroy our way of life.  Our only way to defeat them is to preemptively destroy our way of life.  Then they lose.  We haven't even reached the level that our friends in the UK have.  We need start monitoring our representatives because they clearly could be working for the enemy or at least having casual phone conversations with them.

And as is so often pointed out, if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?  The government must secretly monitor us in order to protect us like an overbearing father or mother.  If we are not being watched every moment of every day, then how does President Bush know that his precious flock is safe?  I mean memos with conspicuous titles are clearly not enough.  We need visuals and recordings, something that is easy to understand.

This statement is one I'd expect to see from Bush, John Warner or Lieberman.  Or something from the editorial pages of the WSJ.  It's all "FISA is hard work" and "terrorists are out to gitcha" and "trust us, we know what's best for you".

The worst part is the bit about the current bill expiring in two days.  And then what would happen?  OH NO!!1!  They'd have to actually get warrants from the FISA court.  I guess that's pretty much surrendering to the terrorists.

Where's the Webb with the "born fighting" marketing slogan?
Why is he (and the other gutless Dems that voted in favor of telecom immunity) afraid to send up a bill that might get vetoed by a lame-duck President with a 30% approval rating?

Get him to join Dodd's commitment to filibuster any bill that allows the Government to use telecommunicagtions companies to spy on us without a warrant (a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution)
Get him to support the House standard which supports the standard.
Ask him to explain why FISA, which was the law in this country from 1978 to 2006(!) is suddenly dangerous.

Check out my recent post on my phone call to Webb's office.

WE NEED TO CHANGE HIS MIND BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!
CALL NOW!

Capitol Switchboard
202-225-3121

If you have any questions about it, write me:
Mark@RadioInsideScoop.com
Or call into my radio show at:
www.RadioInsideScoop.com

I more than agree with tx2vadem and also with Dan G.  There is too much negativity in this string of comments, started by Sui Juris, which translates, for those who have not the advantage of Latin classes at Georgetown U., roughly, we don't need a jury to call a pig a pig.

Listen up, the Democrats who, according to Sui Juris,  valued the telecom companies which supposedly should have known better and should have protected the Constitutional rights of suspected terrorist organizations like the ACLU and others, well, obviously Sui Juris did not hear our President this a.m.  "The enemy is planning attacks on us big time, and we gotta smoke them out," was the theme of his message, the above quote, of course, not being word perfect.  And smoke 'em out" we must.  We can live without Constitutional rights if we must, in order to preserve a more perfect union.  And if traitors in the ACLU and other supposed defenders of rights suffewr, it will be our gain, not our loss.  You should look for the glass being half full!

And what about the attempted distraction by Mr. Juris of the "Just following orders defense."  Eichman used it to defend an otherwise exemplary career, during which he carried out the intent of his leader and, I might add, carried out his mission successfully.  This defense, used by many in the current administration should be favorably seen since it reflects not only the feelings of the majority here but also has been a harbinger of the successes of the current administration.

And finally, to rebut Eric's arguments about our fears of letting unconstitutionality reign, I say again that the Constitution is only a piece of paper, and history provides many examples of successful end runs of its provisions.  Obviously the most famous example is that of Sally Hemmings, Jefferson's slave, who bore him children.  While no Beyonce, she nevertheless parleyed her looks and brains into a successful marriage with a Baltimore plastic surgeon, Dr. Barney Epstien, and amassed a fortune worth $2.1 million from successful 401K investments.  This from a slave in slavery to a great President, and which practice was later banned by Constitutional amendment--needlessly, as this example of resourcefullness shows.  

As we should realize, you can even use Constitutional provisions, and you know whom I mean by "You," to ban usefull practices in the war on terror, such as waterboarding, stopping surveillance of foreign enemies like PETA and the ACLU and Bnai Brth, and even allowing the scientific torture of one-cell human beings that are being flushed away, the latter a crime against God (Mathew 3.91).

When our President calls for help, we must heed him--he does it for the people he loves, the people with whom he would like to have a beer with, if he weren't a hopeless alcoholic.  

Be patriotic for once, above responders.  Forget the Constitution; Remember the Alamo!  Don't be the most  negative poster on this site and support Webb even if it kills you (us).