What could he possibly say that would make this vote okay?  That Alberto promised him that he'd really really tell the truth this time?  That Bush told him that if he didn't, there'd be a terrorist attack on Alexandria?

Please.  Webb has a lot of apologizing to do.  And then he needs to help scuttle this.  This was an appalling act on his part.

According to Marty Lederman's analysis of the bill, not all surveillance would require FISA Court review. It seems to have some pretty big loopholes and allow much broader surveillance than existing law.

And I'm not sure how meaningful including Mike McConnell in the oversight is going to be, considering that Bush was able to get him to back out of the deal he earlier made with Democrats on this legislation.

I too am eager to see what Webb has to say.

and frankly I worry more about LexusNexus, choicepoint, Experian, insurance companies and web tracking cookies...i.e. corporations than I do about the government.  I mean maybe that's backwards for the government can literally take away your freedom but to me, every damn day my GPS is on my cell phone and my car, eventually I'm going to get e-location marketing via my cell phone, and I have no idea, no access if any of this information is even correct. 

And the Internets?  Hey, you need to check out site meter, not only are the stats publicly available but they are using tracking cookies to boot. 

I know that rankings from truthlaidbare are based on this but that, especially on political blogs, is really, really uncool and soapblox is using them for their stats.

I mean the government has to purge criminal records of misdemeanors after a certain number of years but does LexusNexus?  I have no idea.  Do they have to correct inaccuracies?

please don't start using this kind of lame justification:

For instance, what if Webb has knowledge of an imminent threat of attack, per Chertoff's "gut feeling" of a few weeks ago?  I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just pointing it out as a possibility.

If there were an imminent threat, you could get all the surveillance authorization in the world from the existing FISA court under existing FISA rules.  This kind of I've-got-a-secret-trust-me crap is just as appalling from a Democrat as a Republican.

Dummycrats, give them the majority, tell them we want an end to the BushCo non-sense, and they roll over kiss BushCo ASS anyway?  CAPITULATION - smells like..VICTORY!

I am sooo surprised.

I am going to wait to hear what Webb says also.  However, I am initially NOT pleased at all.  Giving gonzales oversight on something is like having no oversight at all.  In my opinion gonzales has sold his soul to bush and will do whatever bush wants - breaking laws, ignoring laws, and just rubber stamping bush.

that this carte blanche has been given to a lying, untrustowrthy Administration. I need to get a handle on the rationale--- for example, an enormous number of the world's communications are routed through US-owned satellites even if neither sender nor receiver is within CONUS, which gives a sort of entre to Bush's thing about communications to or from America.

Then there is the great suspicion we all have: Bush must be spying on innocent Americans, especially political dissidents he does not like. I have always wondered just why so many Democratic leaders suddenly roll over and give Bush exactly what he wants, and think, maybe because Bush has blackmail info on them from his warrantless spying? This bill is yet another example.

On the other hand, the terrorists have learned that their former use of cell phones to communicate opened many of their secrets to police and to counterspies, so they are no dummies--- they are very technologically astute, and are taking advantage of the latest innovations (including, I understand, using satellite images of, say, the Green Zone to zero in on mortar targets).  We have to respond with equal technological cleverness.  But, does this necessity mean NO timely oversight of any sort? I find that hard to believe.

...but I trust Jim Webb.  I think there has to be more to this story we're not hearing.  It's always tricky when we want outright transparency in a matter like this because if there is something going on security-wise that pushes Jim to vote for this bill, national security could be put in jeopardy. 

Webb is probably the smartest guy in Washington on these matters and I can't see him making this unpopular vote without a good reason. 

If time proves me wrong, then I'm wrong, but for the time being I'm gonna conclude Jim Webb has a reason for this vote.

Time will tell and I wouldn't turn my back on Webb just yet. 

"Webb is probably the smartest guy in Washington on these matters and I can't see him making this unpopular vote without a good reason."

But I eagerly await an official explanation.

it sucks when people you work your heart out for sell you out, doesn't it?

That implies Webb voted the way he did for the wrong reasons, such as pressure from special interests or a "cave in" to the Bush White House.  I strongly doubt that.  I am hoping for an official statement from his office soon. In the meantime, I'm assuming that he did what he thought was best - whether we agree with it or not.

...based on everything that I know, I STRONGLY opposed this bill, don't trust Gonzales or Bush as far as I can throw them, and believe that the rule of law requires warrants be approved IN ADVANCE for wiretaps, searches, etc. 

There is no good reason to vote for it.  That's why you strongly opposed it.

The only possible explanation that you and another have come up with thus far has been knowledge of some secret threat.  And for some reason, that sounds faintly familiar, doesn't it?

Look, I'm willing to listen to what Webb's office has to say.  But I think trying to sort out what could possibly make it a reasonable vote is a fair thing to do.  And thus far, I've not seen anything.

And I don't think we will.  Here's what you're going to get:

I voted in support of the FISA bill in order to give us the tools we need to protect us from terrorists.  While we didn't get everything we wanted, I am satisfied that there are checks put in place to protect our rights.  The provisions expire in six months, and we'll take a look at how things have gone then.  If [and this'll be the punchline] this Administration has failed in any way to protect the rights of Americans, I'll hold them to account then.

it was said on another blog I read, Webb seems to be one of the phoney Washington tough guys. It continues to amaze me that the minute Bush dragss out the "teeerrrurrist attack is imminent, dumbocrats roll over and play dead all the while talking tough before the vote. Then they cave in like a souffle. They're so terrified of looking weak on tteerrur but this makes them look weaker than ever.
So now we get six more months of them spying on us and- ta da-Abu Gonzales, who two days ago they were talking about impeaching, oversees it all.
wow. I don't see how Webb can justify this vote. But I'm sure he'll come up with some grand strategy of why he did. And everyone will forgive him and not be mean to him anymore.
Checkbook closed.

Do you ever get the feeling that a lot of elected politicians who are elected in part by help from the netroots, sometimes would just like the critical 24/7 oversight of us bloggers to go away?

n/t

they love the blogs as long as we are raising money and cheerleading for them but the minute the campaigns is over, I'm sure they wish the blog would close down until the next election. Because, of course, bloggers actually hold them GASP-accountable. And that's a new thing for politicians.

Not this time.  It is hard to even write about this.  The Democrats have lost their way.  And now Bush knows once and for all (if he didn't already) that all he has to do is bully and the Dems will cave over anything.  We are up the creek and we have no one.  Not anymore.

If it means that foreign terrorists in country X are talking to foreign terrorists in country Y and the packets get routed through the  United States, why should officials need a warrant to listen in?

Sounds like it had broad support and it doesn't seem to be the grevious attack on personal liberty that some are it portraying as.

If it's a big mistake we can fix it later. 

and if by "broad support" you mean Republicans plus some Dems from conservative states, well, yeah, I guess.

Go read the Marty Lederman piece.

from a conservative state?  That must be news to her!: )  How about Dianne Feinstein, from that incredibly conservative state of California?  Or Tom Carper from conservative Delaware? Amy Klobuchar from conservative Minnesota? 

Meanwhile, Jon Tester from conservative Montana voted "no." The point is, it's not that simple as "Dems from conservative states" voted one way and "Dems from blue states" voted another way.

But I still wouldn't call it broad support.

Read Marty Lederman's analysis and followup questions. This bill is not restricted to terrorists or foreigners.

The executive branch should not be given carte blanche to listen in on people's communications with no oversight. That has led to abuses in the past (which is why the FISA Court was established in the first place), and it certainly will in the future, even if it's not currently being abused by this administration -- something I'm not willing to concede given the current politicization of the Department of Justice.

There is no excuse for shredding the constitution and rule of law, even if it's in the (supposed) name of "protecting" those things.  Unacceptable.

...courtesy of the AP.

Alabama
Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes.

Alaska
Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.

Arizona
Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Not Voting.

Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California
Boxer (D) Not Voting; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado
Allard (R) Yes; Salazar (D) Yes.

Connecticut
Dodd (D) No; Lieberman (I) Yes.

Delaware
Biden (D) No; Carper (D) Yes.

Florida
Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia
Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii
Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho
Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) Yes.

Illinois
Durbin (D) No; Obama (D) No.

Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Not Voting.

Iowa
Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) Not Voting.

Kansas
Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes.

Kentucky
Bunning (R) Not Voting; McConnell (R) Yes.

Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.

Maine
Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland
Cardin (D) No; Mikulski (D) Yes.

Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) No; Kerry (D) Not Voting.

Michigan
Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) No.

Minnesota
Coleman (R) Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.

Mississippi
Cochran (R) Yes; Lott (R) Not Voting.

Missouri
Bond (R) Yes; McCaskill (D) Yes.

Montana
Baucus (D) No; Tester (D) No.

Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada
Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) No.

New Hampshire
Gregg (R) Not Voting; Sununu (R) Yes.

New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) No; Menendez (D) No.

New Mexico
Bingaman (D) No; Domenici (R) Yes.

New York
Clinton (D) No; Schumer (D) No.

North Carolina
Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) Yes.

North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Not Voting.

Ohio
Brown (D) No; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma
Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes.

Oregon
Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) No.

Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island
Reed (D) No; Whitehouse (D) No.

South Carolina
DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) Yes.

South Dakota
Johnson (D) Not Voting; Thune (R) Yes.

Tennessee
Alexander (R) Not Voting; Corker (R) Yes.

Texas
Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah
Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont
Leahy (D) No; Sanders (I) No.

Virginia
Warner (R) Yes; Webb (D) Yes.

Washington
Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) Not Voting.

West Virginia
Byrd (D) No; Rockefeller (D) No.

Wisconsin
Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) No.

Wyoming
Barrasso (R) Yes; Enzi (R) Yes.

by Jim Webb's vote.
I want to hear from him why he voted yes.
He and the other Democratic Senators who voted "yes" are taking a beating on dailykos.
So if Jim Webb can tell us something here that we don't understand about his vote, we need to know that.
Meanwhile yesterday or the day before on Countdown, KO interviewed Jonathan Turley who pointed out the the FISA law itself is very weak on protecting our liberties. It is not a panacea and we have been drifting toward a very worrisome state wrt civil liberty protections.
This is all very troubling.

I do want to hear from Jim Webb.

I find it very hard to believe that he caved based on intimidation or fear.

Keep in mind that he had to be persuaded to run.

We need to know more.

But an imminent threat would not satisfy me because the FISA court could cope with that, I suspect.

I don't think this president should be given any more power but should have his power rolled back big time.

in a new diary.

When I see a defection that large, my inclination is to believe that there's something more subtle afoot than fear of GOP attacks.

But Lowell, be careful you don't say anything like that on Dkos.  I was about skinned alive when I suggested that we see what the Dems said.

That's why I mainly stay over here at RK! :)

The diary says "For instance, what if Webb has knowledge of an imminent threat of attack, per Chertoff's "gut feeling" of a few weeks ago?"

My God, whatever led him to his conclusions, let's all hope and pray that Webb wasn't swayed by Chertoff's "gut feelings."  Pleeeeeease.  See: http://www.youtube.c...

We elected Webb believing that he'd represent us properly.  In this case he voted along with Feinstien. Nelson, etc.  He was not in a vacuum in his belief that a 6 month time period would suffice to see how things were going, before, possibly, amending the bill.

I personally believe that this sort of surveillance bill allows the administration as much chance of gathering useful information as Bush's recent colonoscopy had of finding electrical activity in his brain lobes.  Yet, I'll trust Webb on this because though I know he was a Republican spear carrier for years, I believe he is incensed about the path this administration has taken, in Iraq and other areas.  Further, Webb's screenwriting activities certainly brought him into contact with many of the liberal ilk, both thoughtful and rabid, and I would guess that Webb, a bright guy, would have considered their viewpoints rather than call them traitors.  Further, Webb, at present, seems not only not an idealogue for the right but can surely see what is right for us.

We can't get all we want in our leaders, and this vote seems like a slap in our progressive faces, but Webb was not alone, as noted above and in his explanation of his vote, and I'll trust him on this one.