Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
Popular content
Today's Top News
Congress Votes to Immunize Lawbreaking Telecoms, Legalize Warrantless Eavesdropping
The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal by approving a bill to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.
Prior to final approval, the Senate, in the morning, rejected three separate amendments which would have improved the bill but which the White House had threatened would have prompted a presidential veto. With those amendments defeated, the Senate then passed the same bill passed last week by the House, which means it is that bill, in unchanged form, that will be sent to the White House -- just as the White House demanded.
The first amendment, from Sens. Dodd, Feingold and Leahy, would have stripped from the bill the provision immunizing the telecoms. That amendment failed by a vote of 32-66, with all Republicans and 17 Democrats in favor (the roll call vote is here). The next amendment was offered by Sen. Arlen Specter, which would have merely required a court to determine the constitutionality of the NSA spying program and grant telecom immunity only upon a finding of constitutionality. Specter's amendment failed, 37-61 (roll call vote is here). The third amendment to fail was one sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, merely to require that the Senate waits until the Inspector General audits of the NSA program are complete before immunizing the telecoms. The Bingaman amendment failed by a vote of 42-56 (roll call vote here).
The Senators then voted for "cloture" on the underlying FISA bill -- the procedure that allows the Senate to overcome any filibusters -- and it passed by a vote of 72-26. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture. Hillary Clinton voted with 25 other Democrats against cloture. And with cloture approved, the bill itself then proceeded to pass by a vote of 69-28 (roll call vote here), thereby immunizing telecoms and legalizing warrantless eavesdropping. Again, while Obama voted with all Republicans to pass the bill, Sen. Clinton voted against it.
Obama's vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama's spokesman -- in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama's views on the spying controversy after he had issued a vague and noncommittal statement -- issued this emphatic vow:
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill -- the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster -- and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of a clear campaign promise is difficult of imagine. I wrote extensively about Obama's support for the FISA bill, and what it means, earlier today. With their vote today, the Democratic-led Congress has covered-up years of deliberate surveillance crimes by the Bush administration and the telecom industry, and has dramatically advanced a full-scale attack on the rule of law in this country. As I noted earlier today, Law Professor and Fourth Amendment expert Jonathan Turley was on MSNBC's Countdown with Rachel Maddow last night and gave as succinct an explanation for what Democrats -- not the Bush administration, but Democrats -- have done today. Anyone with any lingering doubts about what is taking place today in our country should watch this:
What is most striking is that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP -- when the Senate was run by Bill Frist and the House by Denny Hastert -- the Bush administration attempted to have a bill passed very similar to the one that just passed today. But they were unable to do so. The administration had to wait until Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress before being able to put a corrupt end to the scandal that began when, in December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the President had been breaking the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.Yet again, the Democratic Congress ignored the views of their own supporters in order to comply with the orders and wishes of the Bush administration. It is therefore hardly a surprise that, yesterday, Rasmussen Reports revealed this rather humiliating finding:Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
The Congress, with a powerful cast of bipartisan lobbyists and the establishment media class lined up behind telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping, looked poised to pass this bill back last December, but a large-scale protest was organized -- largely online -- by huge numbers of American who were opposed to warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity, and that protest disrupted that plan. Today, Sen. Chris Dodd, the leader of the opposition effort along with Russ Feingold, said on the Senate floor:
Lastly, I want to thank the thousands who joined with us in this fight around the country -- those who took to the blogs, gathered signatures for online petitions and created a movement behind this issue. Men and women, young and old, who stood up, spoke out and gave us the strength to carry on this fight. Not one of them had to be involved, but each choose to become involved for one reason and one reason alone: Because they love their country. They remind us that the "silent encroachments of those in power" Madison spoke of can, in fact, be heard, if only we listen.
Today, the Democratic-led Senate ignored those protests, acted to protect the single most flagrant act of Bush lawbreaking of the last seven years, eviscerated the core Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants, and cemented the proposition that the rule of law does not apply to the Washington Establishment.
* * * * *
I was on the Brian Lehrer Show this morning debating the FISA bill with former Clinton National Security Advisor Nancy Soderberg (who favors the bill). Because of some technical difficulties, I wasn't on the show until roughly 7:30 in. That debate can be heard here. Tomorrow, at 10:00 a.m. EST, I'll be on NPR's On Point to discuss Obama and the FISA vote. That can be heard here.
© 2008 Salon.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

249 Comments so far
Show AllALL of us beings that have written here are the subversives that will bring an end to the psychopathic corporate fascist state. Now is the moment to choose either freedom or tyranny. We cannot be afraid of what might happen to us. Lose fear and tyranny turns to dust.
Obama lost my vote today.
My two Senators voted NAY. So how about a 1 day moratorium on any New Jersey jokes.
I went to http://mybarackobama.com and started a group called "Obama lost my vote today." I have yet to hear whether or not their administrators will approve it.
I guess I will be writing in Kucinich after all.
All we can really do is vote for Obama hoping for respite, and wait until the Internet's influence inevitably overcomes the corporate media's so our moronic public learns the truth.
If the former sheeple can get the straight poop from different global online sources, they'll begin to understand and vote for candidates that have their best interests in mind and not the oligarchy's.
Old ankylosed conservatives who always vote won't change, but most don't use the Internet anyway. Our best hopes will lie in the new tech knowledgeable generation from which conservatives can't hide or corrupt the truth. It will probably take a couple of years, judging by rising anti-Bush polls.
Orwell didn't count on the Internet as a global organizing tool and for information and communications. Big Brother hasn't been able to control the Internet yet, not for lack of trying.
Though the Internet cuts both ways, the truth eventually surfaces. That's my observation.
jcumb:
I'm curious as to why your website link http://www.crumbproducts.com/ levees a Sales Tax on products purchased? Should it not be Tax Free?
So much for the concept of a free country. I suppose we should have seen this one coming. Time to invest in some serious encryption devices.
I no longer care how my Senators voted. I'll NEVER again vote for either corporate party.
MRFOAD might be right, it may take grapeshot and canister to get through to our elected officials. We MUST hold them to a higher standard - to slowly twist in the wind if necessary. Ditto the Evilgelicals.
It's not just lobbyists offering bribes but it's also our elected officials taking bribes from these 'artifical' citizens. This catistrophic destruction or our republic was cast more than a hundred years ago. Google: 'Santa Clara County vs Union Pacific Railroad' to understand how We-The-People were betrayed.
It's amazing to see how many have become so politically astute here in just a week's time, after having the opportunity to observe the obvious for 16+ months.
How many lies does a person have to tell before some realize the person is a damn liar or a con artist?
I do acknowlege, that Obama could convince many, that horseshit was caviar. He is the best orator I have ever seen.
So many intelligent comments!
NIETSCHZE: Love the odds/humor!
PUCK TWAIN: Now that was far-out, and it's me saying so! Explain to the good people, what the 6th chakra constitutes!
MS. SHEEHAN: Your wonderfully insightful use of l984 to reflect CURRENT U.S. policies should become an advertisement in a mainstream (USA TODAY?) publication. I, for one, would put $50 towards buying that ad space if others in the forum will also help. This would educate the American voters who truly do NOT see the connecting of very dark dots, and what the cloud over our land is only beginning to represent and mean.
At the bottom of this ad, the call should be that everyone who resonates with the message send $19.84. That is a wonderfully symbolic fiscal gesture!
SAMSON: Excellent postings along this thread.
Dear JCrumb
I have not paid my federal taxes since my son was killed for lies...
CODEPINK tried to organize a tax protest...I believe they asked people to not pay a very small portion, and of course, that went nowhere.
We who are awake are a very small minority here in America...I am running to win here in San Francisco and I don't have the staff, or the time to organize a mass tax revolt, even though I would endorse one and back one.
Also, I believe paying or not paying taxes is a moral decision and we can't judge people who do. We don't know their circumstances or what else they do to try and end the murdering, torturing, and totalitarianism in our country...and you realize that most of the money for this war comes from China anyway.
xoxo
Cindy
Hi Cindy,
Happy birthday!!!! I will be getting another check to your campaign this evening. Take care.
CINDY: Is there a mailing address/PO box etc that one can send a check? I prefer it to on-line credit card transactions. Perhaps others in this forum feel the same way for the issue du jour's very reason!
This Bill is in Clear violation of Our Constitutional Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court will strike it Down...right?!? (...dissolves into a fit of uncontrollable laughter)
Watch the Jonathan Turley Youtube video embedded above in this article. Excellent analysis: he points out that the president committed 30 FELONIES, it is blatantly out in the open for all to see. SO, what do does Pelosi, Obama, and Reid do? They GUT the 4th Amendment (a provision in the Bill of Rights that protects us from UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES), re-write the 4th Amendment to protect President Bush and the Telecoms! So, we the people now have no protection against unwarranted searches and seizures because Bush chose to break the law and create a surveillance, wire tapping police state. Telecom lobbyists and the democrats like Pelosi and Reid and your "mr. new America" Obama voted to EVISCERATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
How could anybody--ANYBODY--like the democrats? This Democratic Senate, ONCE AGAIN, does everything it can to worship, protect and even FURTHER the Bush agenda....EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO GUT THE 4TH AMENDMENT, and not only that: ENHANCE the powers of the president to EXPAND WARANTLESS WIRETAPPING AND GIVE TOTAL IMMUNITY TO TELECOM COMPANIES DOING THE WIRETAPPING FROM LAWSUITS.
This government of Bush and the democrats knows NO LIMITS to how BAD, how much DAMAGE they can do, HOW COMPLETELY FUCKED UP THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS NOW THANKS TO THESE FUCKING ASSHOLES.
You might want to say it can't get much worse than this, but rest assured it WILL get even worse than this...what a bunch of fucking corporate losers...pure, wretched evil at your expense.
Hi
Our mailing address is
1260 Mission St
San Francisco, Ca 94103
and all the info is at: www.CindyforCongress.org
thanks!
Cindy
The Feds waste little time eavesdropping. Last night I was having a phone conversation with a friend, and about five minutes into it, she asked if someone was trying to call me. I told her "no" and asked her the same question (my phone usually beeps in two quick cadences when someone is trying to call me). She said "no". After her reply I did notice a sound that was similar to someone hanging up a phone. She asked me why someone would listen to the conversation and I told her about the new law that allowed the government to eavesdrop on phone conversations anytime it wanted to without a court order. She had not heard about the bill and HIT THE ROOF. I did not try to calm her. She thanked me for informing her and said she would tell all of her friends (she has lots of friends).
Heads up everyone. Big Brother is listening.
Senator Obama's betrayal of the American people in assisting to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment by his vote to approve the FISA bill has forced me to turn my back on him as a potential Presidential candidate. In my estimation he has now joined the 81% of this Congress that the American public disapproves of. I thank those Senators who voted to overturn the bill. I regret that none of you are running for the Presidency. That office has been so abused, defaced, and dishonored by the current president that it will take decades to undo the damage he has wreaked on the American people and the world. I will vote for Ralph Nader now and not for a minute consider my vote wasted because I will still be able to face myself in the mirror each morning, knowing that I didn't go along with the crowd because "some things have to be sacrificed to obtain others." I would hope others will do some soul-searching regarding this matter as well and push the "hype" of the upcoming election aside in favor of helping to restore integrity to our highest office and our precious Constitution.
I quit writing these little essays over two years ago to give reality a chance to catch up. Forgive the immodesty of linking to myself, but I think all of us saw this coming a long time back.
http://www.voxclamantis.com/pages/wasser.html
http://www.voxclamantis.com/pages/spies.html
Although I have determined to vote for Nader since the beginning of his candidacy, I have been wiling to hold out hope that an Obama win would be a positive thing. Not after today. That twerp can go back to Chicago, and we'll let Mohammed Atta fly the plane.
whats the opposite of PROgress?
CONgress
(except for a few like kucinich...)
This song sums up the state of Amerika better than any I've ever heard and it's over a decade old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b429zk6aTfs
THE DECLINE
If you live in the south you are familiar with the ubiquitous early twentieth century cotton mill standing empty or maybe converted into shops, offices, or apartments.
Pay closer attention next time you see one. Right in front and center will be a fortress; solid brick walls three feet thick. Originally there was an oak door twelve inches thick with heavy iron hinges and locks on this castle keep.
Guess who stayed in the keep? Guess what they were afraid of?
JCRUM; YOUR WEB SIGHT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SALES EMPORIUM FOR YOUR GARBAGE. WITH SALES TAXES!
DON'T CALL ME AN "ASSHOLE" OR "FUCKING HYPOCRITE" AGAIN.
COMMON DREAMERS; IF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY BORED GO TO CRUMB'S 'SALES' WEB-SIGHT AND BUY SOMETHING-TAXES MUST BE INCLUDED.
QUIT INSULTING ME CRUMB.
I'M NOT A "FUCKING ASSHOLE" I don't do anal intercourse and you are filthy.
YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.
YOUR STUPID T-SHIRTS ARE AS UGLY LOOKING AS YOUR MOUTH SOUNDS.
MAKING LOTS OF SALES?
I joined the Greens & sent them money.
I joined the ACLU and sent them money.
I sent my retirement savings offshore.
Like Superman's parents, abandon hope.
Abandon this failed state & hope anew.
FrankS: "I thank those Senators who voted to overturn the bill. I regret that none of you are running for the Presidency."
To Frank and others here: Hillary Clinton voted against this bill.
How about calling your super-delegates and urging them to vote for her at the convention?
I just joined the ACLU. I gave them a donation that I would have given to Obama.
I'm done with the Democrats. This is the last sellout I can stomach. I just mailed the DNC their donation request with $0 and an explanation of why.
The Dems and Repubs are both beholden to corporate interests. The people are just used as ATM machines.
Obama was a damn liar in the primary. He never intended to stop the FISA bill. What a disgrace.
This is just too much. Obama deserves to lose. He sold out on our constitution. The Obama apologists are a disgrace as well.
Hillary cannot be trusted. If she was really against this bill then why didn't she speak up with Feingold?
Please, she's as corrupt as Obama. Neither of them deserve our vote.
Bob K, please don't try to feed us any Hillary Bullshit about her vote. Hillary is a bigger corporate whore than Obama or any of the rest. Her vote was more typical Clinton Triangulation, pure fucking politics! If she had been the nominee, her and Obama's votes would most likely be reversed, along with many others who made an easy vote with no consequences, but refused to really fight against the FISA bill. So, stop with the Clinton would have been a better choice bullshit, all the better choices left the race a long time ago!
Bob K, I'm sorry if that last comment was a bit harsh, and it was. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am just so fucking tired of having the choice of "no choice", given to us by the MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex). I would have voted for Hillary if she had been the nominee, and she has already done more to piss me off than Obama has, including his dumb-ass FISA vote. It's no wonder to me that so many voters are apathetic, but that's the way the power-brokers want it.
MikeBinSC,
Your comments have no substance. You have no specifics, no facts, just hate speech.
Hillary's voting record has been consistently progressive -- not perfectly progressive, but consistently and surprisingly progressive. Her vote against the FISA amendment was typical and predictable. Obama's vote for the bill was also typical and predicatable -- for him, based on his voting record.
You say Hillary is the "bigger corporate whore." That is completely false. Her voting record is second only to Kucinich in it's liberalism. Her voting record is certainly to the left of John Edwards' voting record.
People like you, repeating and spreading this ignorance and hate, are responsible for bringing the real corporate whore to prominence: Obama. You bought the corporate media spin, you bought Obama's campaign lies, you didn't do your homework, and now you're surprised and disappointed in Obama.
If you want to blame someone, look in the mirror.
Russ Feingold on Democracy Now could not answer the question of why Democrats went along with this.
Just sent a check for $19.84 to Cindy (and another for more).
It's time to take our country back from these pieces of shits, time to fight and rid our country of all who don't defend our constitution.they need to be in prison not in office.
D A R I U S _ Q _ P A Q U E T T E,
Perhaps the manner of "taking" our country back is not as you've imagined ?
Perhaps it is a spiritual quest and transformation, that is needed to clarify what we really want of our lives and each other ?
As long as we continually focus our attention ( and intention ) upon the "WHAT IS", the more inertia we establish that we must eventually reverse.
The most powerful act that ALL of us can accomplish, requires no blood, sweat, or armaments. As we are essentially spiritual HUMAN BE'ings living a physical existence, are focus is increasingly being drawn inward, as our outward lives crumble, deteriorate, and provide less satisfactory existence."WHAT IS _ T O __ B E __",
I have a set of references to other postings about this that can be found _here_
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
No Bob K, I never suffered under the illusion that Obama was a progressive, nor did I suffer under the illusion that YOU have about Hillary being progressive. Neither were my choice in the primaries, as I knew where both of them were coming from. But, the primaries are over now, and we have what we have, end of story. Your calls for pushing Clinton at the convention are devisive and weakening to progressives trying to end this eight-year national nightmare of Republican, Neo-Fascist domination.
So you want to replace it with a nightmare of Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing, Neo-Fascist domination?
Thanks a lot for trying to slap a Democrat label on the same old crap.
Hillary Clinton's voting record in the Senate is no "illusion." Why do you keep peddling that BS? Senate.gov has the voting records. Have you ever looked at the records?
I'm willing to bet you would flunk a test of how Hillary and Obama have voted in the Senate these past 3 1/2 years. Any honest person who can pass such a test would not be peddling the Hillary-is-worse-than-Obama crap. Based on actions, not rhetoric, she is far, far better than Obama. In fact, Obama has very little in his voting record that is at all progressive. His voting record is closer to McCain than to Hillary.
We had a progressive candidate (Hillary) with the broad appeal and support to actually WIN the presidency. Amazing! But, badly informed, lazy, stupid and/or dishonest "progressives" echoed the Republican/corporate-media swiftboat campaign and helped to sink her chances with lies, manipulations, race-baiting and hate speech. Disgusting.
Those people should stop offering their opinions and start offering their apologies.
Hillary voted for to give Bush war power and has never thought, to this day, that it was wrong. Hillary has talked about obliterating Iran. Hillary promoted McCain over Obama in the primary, saying that only McCain and she were qualified to be president. There are many other things as well, but suffice to say HILLARY IS NO PROGRESSIVE, period!
And she is owned by deeper pockets in the MIMIC(Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex), including Rupert and Fox, than any other candidate.
Please take your "Hillary is progressive" bullshit to someone else who wants to hear it, as I surely DO NOT! Hillary is progressive, like Bill was progressive, like Obama is progressive. They are all centrist/right.
For anyone who is not too blindly prejudiced to read and understand:
Hillary is progressive, and the proof is her Senate voting record. She is certainly not perfectly progressive, but for a major-party candidate she is amazingly progressive.
Below is a comparison of Hillary's, Obama's and McCain's votes on 14 of the most important and revealing issues arising between January 2005 and the present (while all three have been Senators).
Hillary voted the progressive way on 10 of the 14 votes, Obama did so on just 4 of the 14, and McCain on just one of the 14. (NV means "not voting.")
(1) Confirmation of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State
Vote taken: 1/26/2005
Analysis: Neo-con, war criminal
Clinton: Yes
Obama: Yes
McCain: Yes
(2) Tort "reform" (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Vote taken: 2/10/2005
Analysis: Opposed by more than 68 consumer, civil rights, environmental and labor groups, it was described as the "final [Republican] payback to the tobacco, asbestos, oil and chemical industries, at the expense of ordinary families whose health has been compromised."
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: Yes
(3) Dayton Amendment (S.Amdt. 31) to the 2005 Bankruptcy Act
Vote taken: 3/3/2005
Analysis: Would cap credit card interest rates at 30%. Senator Dayton provided examples of predatory lenders charging vulnerable people more than 1000%/year interest. Republicans argued that "free-markets" should set interest rates, and government should not interfere.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: No
McCain: No
(4) Energy Policy Act of 2005
Vote taken: 7/29/2005
Analysis: A corporate-welfare bill called "bad policy" by Public Citizen because it gives "billions of dollars in unjustified subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries," rolls back environmental regulations for the oil and gas industry, and "repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an essential consumer protection that ensures that electric utilities exist to serve the people, not the profit interests of large corporations."
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: No
(5) Dorgan Amendment (S.Amdt. 1665) to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill
Vote taken: 9/15/2005
Analysis: Would prevent future NAFTA-like trade deals that allow "dumping" of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (harming U.S. farmers, ranchers, businesses and workers), by prohibiting the Commerce Department from weakening current countervailing duties and antidumping laws.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: No
McCain: No
(6) Confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court
Vote taken: 9/29/2005
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No
Obama: No
McCain: Yes
(7) Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
Vote taken: 1/31/2006
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No
Obama: No
McCain: Yes
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Vote taken: 3/1/2006
Analysis: Allows the government to spy on citizens in "fishing expeditions" without probable cause or a court order, including listening to telephone calls, intercepting emails, accessing private medical records, library records and bank records, and searching homes and businesses without permission or knowledge.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: Yes
McCain: Yes
(9) Nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior
Vote taken: 5/26/2006
Analysis: Hard right-winger who received an overall score of zero from the League of Conservation Voters during his six years in the Senate.
Clinton:No
Obama:Yes
McCain:Yes
(Hillary and just seven other Democrats voted to block Kempthorne's nomination.)
(10) Feinstein Amendment (S.Amdt. 4882) to the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Vote taken: 9/06/2006
Analysis: Outlaws use of cluster bombs in most cases, in order to protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: No
(11) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal (2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act)
Vote taken: 3/29/2007
Analysis: Provides that, "The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq."
Clinton: Yes
Obama: Yes
McCain: No
(12) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran
Vote taken: 9/26/2007
Analysis: Tantamount to a declaration of war (Sen. James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy).
Clinton: Yes
Obama: NV
McCain: NV
(13) Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Vote taken: 10/3/2007
Analysis: Requires the President to safely redeploy all U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008, except for those needed for al Qaeda operations, security and training.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: NV
McCain: No
(14) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendment (H.R. 6304)
Vote taken: 7/9/2008
Analysis: Legalizes warrantless wiretapping of, and spying on, Americans by the federal government in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Covers up and excuses more than 30 felony crimes committed by President Bush when he authorized the illegal wiretaps. Provides retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecom companies and terminates all pending lawsuits against them.
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: NV
Furthermore, HIllary is co-sponsor of S. 2398, Senator Bernard Sanders' legislation to prohibit the use of Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy and other mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Obama opposes the bill, and would continue using mercenaries.) Hillary has also taken the lead on vote-count fraud, first introducing the Count Every Vote Act (CEVA) -- which People For the American Way "enthusiastically supports" -- in 2005, and reintroducing it every year since, even though it has never gotten out of committee.
By the way, saying that "Hillary has talked about obliterating Iran" is unconscionable fear-mongering. In truth, she simply stated the long-standing United States policy of deterrence. Simply put, ANY nation that chooses to use nuclear weapons will be the subject of massive retaliation. This "deters" aggressors from using nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia call it Mutually Assured Destruction. It's a policy that has successfully prevented the use of nuclear weapons for more than sixty years.
But, we all know these boring facts from 8th-grade history class. Right?
Bob, even on the basis of those selected 14 votes, you can not classify Hillary as progressive. Dennis Kucinich is a progressive, Hillary - NOT! And worst of all, she seems to have learned nothing since her vote authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq.
As I told you before Bob, I would have voted for Clinton if she had won in the primaries. I argued against both Obama and Clinton in favor of candidates expressing more progressive ideas. It was not until the primaries were over, that with great reluctance, I decided to vote for Obama to help unify the party and hopefully put an end to this Neo-Fascist nightmare that Bush and the Republican enablers, with the help of some Democrats, have forced on the American people.
Many of the votes cast by both, and many other politicians, are nothing more than pandering triangulation, especially when theirs is not the deciding vote. I'm sure that this is the case with Obama's vote on FISA. Get used to it, as it happens all the time.
I know he picked up some red-state supporters with that vote, as I live in one of the deepest red states, and I know how the knuckle-draggers think. The real problem here is that he may have traded away more support than he picked up - A bad political miscalculation.
Obama is following a fifty-state strategy because many previously predictable red states are now in play, like Georgia and other southern states, especially those with large percentages of black voters. Many other states, not in the south, are also on the verge of shifting from red to blue.
I hope we can just agree to disagree, but you will never convince me that Clinton (either of them) are actually progressive. To the left of Bush and McCain? - Sure. Sometimes left of Obama? - OK. Truly progressive? - NO WAY!
NAFTA? Wal-Mart? Murdock/Fox? Iran terrorists? McCain qualified?
BTW Bob, I've made a lot more comments on this subject on this thread -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/10/10247/
"Even on the basis of those selected 14 votes, you can not classify Hillary as progressive."
Why not? She voted the progressive way 10 out of 14 times, and these were the major issues of the day. Lobbyists poured millions of dollars into defeating the public interest on many of these issues, and Hillary stood firm on principle. Would she have to have voted the correct way on all 14 issues in order to win your approval? Even Kucinich can't meet that test.
"Many of the votes cast by both, and many other politicians, are nothing more than pandering triangulation . . ."
This is where you go wrong. When you are a Senator, votes are actions. Actions are what matter. Votes matter. Votes make laws. Laws are what count.
"Pandering" and "triangulation" refer to public opinion/campaign strategies. To use those terms regarding votes is nonsensical. For one reason, the people who would be influenced by pandering and triangulating strategies are rarely aware of how the legislator has voted. (For example, were you aware of how the candidates had voted on these 14 major issues before I brought it to your attention?)
Hillary is "sometimes left of Obama?" No, she is almost always left of Obama. You know who agrees with me the most on that? Obama himself. Witness his recent statement that he has been "tagged as being on the left," and has had to point out that his positions have been consistent [on the right].
Now to your one-word objections to Hillary.
NAFTA: Clinton administration insiders have revealed that as First Lady, Hillary opposed NAFTA. In the Senate, she voted to prevent future NAFTA-like trade deals. Obama voted to allow such deals. (See vote #5 above.) In her campaign for president she consistently said she would renegotiate NAFTA. Obama got caught pandering to Ohio voters when he made that same pledge while his senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee was simultaneously assuring Canadian officials it was just campaign rhetoric. If renegotiating NAFTA is important to you, Hillary is your candidate.
Wal-Mart: I assume you are referring to the fact that 22 years ago, while her husband was Governor of Arkansas, Hillary was given an honorary position on the board of Arkansas' largest company. No one has ever suggested she made company policy, or even took part in directing such policies. She simply accepted the position. You live in a southern state, so I ask you: are the wives of southern Governors expected to embarrass their husbands by rejecting such positions, or by publicly opposing the policies of their state's largest employers?
Contrast Obama's RECENT support for Wal-Mart, just last year (2007). He supported a corrupt, pro-NAFTA city council candidate over a pro-labor candidate in a hotly debated fight over allowing Wal-Mart into Chicago, and he did so in the face of community opposition and university studies showing the net negative economic impact of Wal-Mart on communities. See: OBAMA'S FORGOTTEN WAL-MART ENDORSEMENT: PUTTING WORKERS SECOND AND GOING ALONG TO GET ELECTED by Paul Street; August 28, 2007
Then this year, Obama appointed Wal-Mart defender Jason Furman as his economic policy director.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9534/
So again, if you oppose Wal-Mart's anti-labor policies, Hillary is your candidate.
Murdock/Fox: First you excuse Obama's actions as part of his 50-state campaign and desire to appeal to "the knuckle-draggers," and then you criticize Hillary for even SPEAKING TO the right-wing? Don't you see how hypocritical that is? Furthermore, I watched Hillary's appearance on FOX's O'Reilly Factor and she didn't pander at all; she made her points very well.
Iran terrorists: I don't know what that refers to.
McCain qualified: Again, I can only assume this refers to a statement that McCain meets some kind of experience threshold and Obama does not. I think that is a very obvious observation which no one can dispute. Hillary could have pointed out, but did not, that Obama has never in his lifetime even VISITED Europe. She could have pointed out, but did not, that his entire experience on the national level prior to his run for the presidency consists of just one year in the U.S. Senate.
Beyond that, I certainly believe that candidates are allowed to criticize their opponents' shortcomings. Compare what Obama did to Hillary. He actually smeared her. For example, after she said it takes more than words and hope to accomplish real political change, and gave the example of LBJ's critical role in turning MLK's dream into law -- which is a historical fact -- Obama went to MLK's former church in Atlanta and race-baited her. There's a true measure of the man's integrity. Disgusting.
Now, none of this is to suggest that Hillary is as progressive as Ralph Nader, who is also a candidate for president. I simply point out that she is far, far, far better than Obama.
Hillary and Bill and Obama are all centrist/right. All politicians use votes on bills that don't require their support for passage or blocking to improve their voting records, pull themselves more to the right or left depending on what their constituencies expect. Hillary, like all the rest, refuses to take a principaled stand and really fight for any truly progressive legislation. I was not talking about her appearance on Fox, as we need to speak to those not in agreement with us, I was speaking about Murdock fund-raising for her. She is all about continuing the corporate oligarcy that is destroying the country.
Mike,
I wonder what measure you use to determine that "Hillary . . . and Obama are [both] centrist/right" if you are ignoring their voting records? As far as I know, there is no better measure than voting record.
I've contributed concrete facts. You've contributed your unsubstantiated opinions, which happen to be diametrically opposed to the facts.
Maybe you can at least tell me how you take the measure of politicians, if voting records don't matter to you.
Bob, if she were a progressive, she would demand a change to a single-payer health care system, but that isn't going to happen, is it?
I get it. No straight answers. Constant changing of the goal posts. The perfect is the enemy of the good. They're-all-the-same defeatism.
For Obama, you excuse his consistent right-wing voting record with your rationale that "he has to appeal to knuckle-draggers," all politicians do it, "get used to it," and voting record is of little import.
But for Hillary, you won't excuse even one vote -- her 2002 war authorization vote (77-23 in the Senate) -- in these same terms (even though 9/11 happened in the state she represents).
For Obama, his centrist/right record and agenda is acceptable. For Hillary, her moderate-left record and agenda is unacceptable.
For Obama, corporate campaign contributions are acceptable. For Hillary, they're unacceptable.
Hillary voted for the Feingold-Reid Amendment requiring the safe redeployment of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. Obama did not vote for Feingold-Reid. Hillary is co-sponsor of Bernie Sanders' legislation to prohibit the use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama opposes the bill. Hillary is the anti-occupation candidate. Obama is the pro-occupation candidate. Yet, you support Obama.
I get it.
Bob, you don't get it, as I don't excuse either of them for their right-wing votes. The issue for me is not which of the two is less right-wing, as I told you in the beginning that I would vote for Hillary if she had won the primary. Neither of them are progressive, period.
Bob, you said - "But for Hillary, you won't excuse even one vote — her 2002 war authorization vote (77-23 in the Senate) — in these same terms (even though 9/11 happened in the state she represents)."
The problem with that is that Hillary has not asked to be forgiven for it, in fact she refuses to admit that it was a mistake, and she's doing it again regarding Iran!
If Hillary had won, she would be triangulating and posturing, just like Obama. Bob, the primary is OVER, give it up and support your party's choice or vote for someone else.
The Democrat's make their choice in Denver in August.
All progressives, moderates and other people of conscience should be asking their state's delegates to cast their votes for Hillary.
Hillary's legislative record and agenda is moderate-left, while Obama is an unprincipled Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing as I have DETAILED above (Bob K. July 12th, 2008 8:49 pm.) Obama's Constitution-trashing FISA vote and appointment of right-wing economist/WalMart-defender Jason Furman as his economic policy director are only the most recent examples.
And, you DO excuse Obama's right-wing votes. You should read your own posts.
MikeBinSC July 13th, 2008 1:00 am: "Many of the votes cast by ... politicians are nothing more than pandering triangulation, especially when theirs is not the deciding vote. I'M SURE THAT THIS IS THE CASE WITH OBAMA'S VOTE ON FISA. Get used to it, as it happens all the time."
You are just the same as those knuckle-draggers-for-Bush with their endless excuses for his abhorrent actions.
You never will get it Bob.
If you want to upset the applecart at the convention, you should at least be pushing a real progressive like Dennis Kucinich! But, no, your just another blind Hillary supporter, pissed off that she lost, and she DID LOSE Bob. Get out of your Hillary-bubble and rejoin the world, as it continues to turn and circle the sun, and it ain't going to back up for you, no matter how much you wish it would.
Hillary has a chance to win the nomination. Kucinich does not.
But, I tire of repeatedly pointing out basic facts to someone as dumb, dishonest or drunk as you.
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I'll be voting for Nader.
I leave it to the readers of this thread to determine which of us has the facts on his side, and which of us does not.
Yes, that make a lot of sense Bob, if you can't have Hilliar, you'll take Nader! Your a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass)Bob!