Was It Her Colleagues, or Her Constituents?
As Jane reported last night, our presidential candidates have decided to return to DC to exercise their vote, if not to lead.
I’m glad to have them, though I agree with Tim Tagaris that we could sure use their help on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, as well as today.
I’m curious, though, about one thing. On Friday, here’s what Hillary told Matt Stoller about this vote:
Then I spoke with Hillary, and she said she has assured her colleagues she will go back to the Senate if they need her vote.
As was perfectly clear at that point, you don’t need votes to defeat a cloture vote–you just need to make sure your opponent doesn’t get the requisite 60 votes.
So what convinced Hillary to return and cast a vote that, I’m sure, her Republican opponents will find some way to attack (speaking of which, McCain is blowing off the SOTU, presumably to avoid committing one way or another to this vote)? Was it a slew of faxes sent to her campaign office, finally persuading her that missing this vote will be like flip-flopping on an $87 billion Iraq appropriation? Did someone decide that we might have a shot at reaching cloture on the House version of FISA, RESTORE, which should have a cloture vote immediately following the Rockefeller-Bond bill (I doubt that highly–I suspect this cloture vote is Reid’s attempt to prove that RESTORE is no likelier to pass than the Rockefeller-Bond bill [oops, I confused what the cloture vote is on–it’s on the extension of PAA])? Are we at risk of failing to defeat cloture, and Hillary wanted to make sure her vote was registered? Or did Hillary just remember she had a day job?
[Speaking of which, I’m actually in DC hanging around the Senate today, though I doubt they’ll let me vote in the cloture vote, or even see it any more closely than you can on CSPAN. Posting may be either light or heavy–who knows?]
I’ll give the optimistic scenario. Rockefeller is bringing the other Dems on board, so they’re within striking distance of not actually losing the vote (i.e. getting to 50.) They probably think getting to 50 gives them political cover, though I myself am dubious about that.
If McCain isn’t coming this scenario could even result in an outright “win”.
Perhaps it was getting whipped by Obama in SC and losing Teddy’s endorsement to Obama. She may not like us DFHs, but she can’t win without us either.
She has the older voters who don’t read blogs but are consistent voters. By the way, do you know that HRC increased the percent of black voters in SC? Yeah, I know that goes with what the media says. According to MSNBC exit polls:
Black voter percent that went to HRC
IA: 16
NV: 14
SC: 19
She actually increased 5 percentage points from NV and 3 from IA.
Edwards defeated her in the White vote, not Obama in the black vote.
Apparently Bill Clinton did a good job.
And here is the kicker, Obama lost black voters (as a percentage) in S.C.
There were more black voters there, so he did not feel it. Also Obama did terrible with the white voters. But that was to be expected in S.C.
Thanks for the statistics. To answer your question, no I didn’t know that. Mainly my point was that Hillary’s distant 2nd place in SC means that she can’t afford to blow off any Democratic constituency at this point. So even though she wants to position herself for the general (and therefore avoid doing anything the Rethugs can use for ammunition), she can’t yet turn her back on the progressive base. That said, any Democrat who can’t mount a solid defense for the rule of law against a Rethug attack probably shouldn’t be in the White House. If Hillary really steps up on this stuff, I’ll relent on my criticism of her, but not until she has demonstrated real leadership on these issues. I won’t be holding my breath.
Or could it be she also knew Obama was going to be in DC (Kennedy endorsement, remember) so she had to show up too?
And maybe after all the *&^# hit the fan this weekend, she really needed to show that she’s “listening” not just “finding a voice.”
THat was pretty much what Jane said this morning.
Well if I’m channeling Jane, it’s an honor. I’m sure she’s enlarged on that and I’ll go check it out.
Enjoy DC. And I hope your visit is a productive one.
She said it in the car this morning (I’m staying with her), so I don’t know if she will post it.
Oooo, is this an EW and Jane double-teaming of our Democratic Leadersheep, by any chance? I would love to see that in action ; ) Do what you can to convince the DC chowderheads to represent the public interest. Hard work I know, but perhaps if you use small words, speak slowly, and enunciate clearly, you’ll make some headway.
On a slightly more discouraging note, I just got off the phone with a very pleasant woman at the Boston Globe asking them to print a correction to their Daily Briefing that said “the current FISA authorization expires on Friday”. Although one could construe that to be technically truthful, it stuck me as misleading. So I asked for a correction that says PAA expires on Friday, but that FISA will remain in full force. I explained the distinction, why this was important, and the relevance to the 4th amendment. The woman I spoke with seemed to have absolutely no idea what I was talking about. She works for a newspaper and had no idea. Sigh.
In that case, EW, I must have been channeling her! Wow!
Have some fun while you’re there, EW.
I suspect HRC knows this is one of those defining moments preceding a Dem majority in Congress and a Dem in the White House, where one either demonstrates they are a team player for the term ahead or a potential target — regardless as to the occupant in the White House. No matter where she ends up, she needs to be in a position to say she’s on the team.
Where’s Liebermonster on this, btw?
Lieberman is out campaigning with McCain last time I looked.
Hillary is standup Senator. If her collegues need her vote, she’ll be there. How could she not be in Washington today? Her dem rivals are there. There’s a FISA cloture vote, SOTU address, and the Kennedys for Obama endorsement rally. Will she try to upstage it? I’d take a shot at it. What on Hillary’s schedule for lunchtime today?
Heck, even Mrs. Empty Wheel goes to Washington…
What time do the fireworks begin on C-Span?
after morning business?
Probably after morning business. The actual vote is at 4:30.
Actually, morning business begins at 2, and discussion of cloture begins at 3, vote at 4:30.
Hours like that make it sound like a gathering of Ents. Burra-room.
If only our president had been forced to attend a gathering of Ents prior to entertaining a certain war.
This seems to be an ‘appearance’ play to give the perception of Hillary showing ‘leadership.’
But, I just don’t think it’s going to matter. The last waves of a set at the beach are but echoes of former energy and unknowing of the rising power that is following.
Hillary is looking like a flummoxed Betty Crocker staring at the dawning of the Age of Microwaves. She’s still long-boarding when everyone else is choosing short-board, high-performance composites.
Obama has a great message – Change (with Unity) – Let’s embrace the “new,” together.
To show that he’s riding the incoming set of ‘fresh and building’ Energy, all Obama has to do is cut up into a Barrio and Speak Spanish on the TeeVee, before coming over the top and running down the tube, out into the light.
Obama Roolz!
rfw, if you keep up such metaphor-rich commentary, you’ll be replacing Mark Shields on the News Hour!
Unlike Shields, however, your comments will have some content.
What can I say, TheraP? It’s a time out of mind Monday.
It’s all warm-up for the Kabuki to Come later. This afternoon’s particular show has had a long run, all across America: “How are They Going to ‘Do It to US’ This Time?”
And then Dear Leader is going to Speak ‘at’ US after that.
Personally, I’m looking for signs that Bush’s UE Cloak and Vestments have come Undone…
Problem: Even if they have, he’ll never notice it!
(I don’t think I can stomach watch the SOTU. I can’t stand seeing him bask in the applause. It sickens me.)
Glad to see you on the “hope-train.”
I wish I could be optimistic and say I was on the ‘Hope Train,’ but that’s not really the position I’m coming from – I think most of US, in the lefty blogosphere especially, became linked by mutual ‘disenfranchisement’ from the Political System – all during the Nightmare of the Bush Era.
We DFHs got ‘left out’ early on when Bush declared War on Reason and Equality.
Since then, a lot of US folks (you, too – your comments are insightful, caring and very nicely grounded, imho) have been sitting in our loungers at Emptywheel Beach on Firedoglake – listening to Bush’s Locomotive Breath and waiting for the inevitable ‘Train Wreck.’
This is Bush we’re talking about – imho, stoked full of ‘Lack of Reason’ and a Penultimate Sense of Superiority – which causes him to blunder forward, evermore stridently ‘Staying the Course.’
A curve is defined as ‘a change from straight.’ If the Tracks were to ‘curve’ – even the slightest bit – out of control BushCo would likely De-Rail spectacularly.
It’s sad, really, but worthy of Popcorn, imho, because Bush and his Cronies have insisted on doing this to themselves. While we Firepups have had time to see this coming for years, the Real tragedy is for all the Unreachable Goopers in Bush’s Sleeper Cars – who Believed Blindly in Bush the UE.
Did someone decide that we might have a shot at reaching cloture on the House version of FISA, RESTORE, which should have a cloture vote immediately following the Rockefeller-Bond bill
I assume you mean “should” in the sense of “that’d be the principled thing to do,” rather than in the sense of “that’s what’s planned for this afternoon.”
Reid’s cloture motion is specific. It’s to close off debate on S.Amdt.3918.
And the text of S.Amdt.3918 …
Of course, all sorts of options are in the air. The House’s RESTORE Act, Reid’s various extensions of PAA, including one version, S.2557, that extends the PAA until July 2009, and whatever sort of bill would result from amending the snot out of S.2248, if the Senate permitted that process to occur in an open fashion.
Nuts, you’re right. Noted accordingly.
With all the media coverage of campaigns these days, they should be able to spend more time in DC doing the jobs for which we’re paying them (and paying them well).
I think the cloture vote on the Bond/Rockefeller amendment (SSCI version of the bill) will be rejected on a party-line vote, with maybe two crossovers. Lieberman (I know, you don’t think of him voting AYE as being a crossover, but I keep him nominally in DEM side as that’s where he caucuses) and Specter.
Assuming McCain is a no show, Lieberman votes AYE, and Specter votes AYE instead of crossing over, cloture still won’t get 50 votes, let alone the 60 it needs to pass.
Some DEMs may ask and get “permission” to vote AYE so they can be tough on terror, but with the procedural posture being GOP obstruction, they don’t really need that cover. I’m pretty confident in my “straight party line” prediction.
To put some flesh to an option that is possible (unlikely, given time constraint, but possible), after the Bond/Rockefeller cloture motion is rejected, instead of moving directly to the cloture vote on Reid’s extension.
That option is the Senate announcing it has agreed to a deal where each side gets 4 or so amendments, with each amendment having to pass on 60 vote margin, and with time agreements for debate and vote spelled out. There would still be a final cloture motion on passage of the bill, as amended.
At some point, I think we’ll see exactly what I outlined in the paragraph just above – 60 vote margins and time agreements. I’m doubtful it’s announced today, because the Senate and House aren’t confident that a S.2248, as amended, will emerge by Friday. Bluster notwithstanding, Bush would sign an extension, if that was the only option on his desk.
It’s an interesting idea (and I agree with your scenario of what is most likely to happen above), but I think Reid would get himself evicted if he limited it to 4 amendments. There are at least 5 that have merit (three immunity options, DiFi’s exclusivity, and the requirement that they turn over documents; and I’m sure i’m missing a few). While I think 60 votes might be the ultimate resolution, I suspect Reid will insist that all the amendments get their hearing.
I think Reid would get himself evicted if he limited it to 4 amendments
They’ll dicker over the assignments. The Specter/Whitehouse substitution amendment will be counted as a GOP option, I bet.
The number of introduced amendments on this bill now numbers about fifty. Five-Oh. 50. The range and subject material is extremely interesting, albeit dense reading. At any rate, I just wanted to generalize the procedural path that I think will happen about three weeks from now.
… we could sure use their help on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, as well as today.
With the cushion of a PAA extension, the Senate might go back to the Indian Health Care bill to finish up this week. That also has the effect of tiring out privacy proponents, and/or chilling their enthusiasm and momentum. I expect two cloture votes, passage of the extension, and “moving to something completely unrelated.” FISA will come up again, but not this week.
Just guessin’. The economic stimulus package will come in before a FISA bill is re-handled.
Well, I am glad to have Obama’s help on this; However, I do have the audacity to hope he doesn’t hit the wrong button on his vote again.
Oh, and the document turnover amendment of Feingold is already pending, not that it too couldn’t be saddled with a 60 vote margin, but it’s outside the scope of number of additional amendments to take up and debate.
PAA expires on Friday, but that FISA will remain in full force
That’s not quite true either. What’s in full force is existing snoop orders. And if those are broad enough (e.g., “give me everything from outside the US”), then you’re right, status quo regardless of the fate of S.2248.
But NEW snoop orders would become more complex. The paperwork for a NEW snoop order under the PAA is minimal, with negligible court oversight. The paperwork for a NEW snoop order under pre-PAA FISA is more complex, in any event.
True, but you know they will enter all the overbroad, all encompassing orders they can come up with Thursday, so there is no real problem; and if there is, the normal process isn’t all that burdensome. Either way, the argument by the Bushies that this is some big problem is just plain false and disingenuous.
Thanks for the correction cboldt, but now I’m confused. I thought that if PAA expires, that what remains is the version of FISA that was operative prior to PAA last summer. If I am wrong about that (and from your comment I am), can you please clarify how the “temporary” PAA will somehow continue to supercede the previous legislation (which was not expiring in August, it was just deemed inadequate)?
Phred under the PAA, all order under the Act remain in full force and effect for one year.. Since the PAA is only six months old, any snooping order will remain in effect for at least another 6 months and, per my #32 above, any broad orders entered, say, Thursday will continue for a whole year.
Other than that, which is plenty, the law reverts to the pre-PAA FISA law.
Thanks bmaz, I had forgotten about the built-in 1 year extension for a piece of legislation with a 6 month sunset. How on earth do legislators vote for this kind of duplicitous crap in the first place? Worse, how do they maintain a straight face when they talk about the expiration date?
I thought that if PAA expires, that what remains is the version of FISA that was operative prior to PAA last summer.
That’s correct. I just refer to that as “pre-PAA FISA” There would still be a mechanism for obtaining new snoop orders, and all the orders obtained under PAA remain in effect for a year after they are issued. I’d add, the “orders under the PAA” are pretty much 100% under the control of DOJ, with burden of court oversight before the snoop directive is delivered to the telecom.
“Please build and maintain a splitter at XYZ, and deliver all traffic thereon to the NSA” would a mighty broad snoop order, and not one that would surprise me. Those activities continue even though the law lapses.
The “gap” that would be created by lapse isn’t known, because the “gap” depends on the breadth of existing orders.
Oops … pretty much 100% under the control of DOJ, without burden of court oversight before the snoop directive is delivered to the telecom.
Thanks for the explanation cboldt. Now I understand what you mean about a gap between the overly broad orders issued under PAA and not being able to issue new-and-improved overly broad orders with the expired-PAA-1-yr-extension-pixie-dust-for-all…
Now I understand what you mean about a gap between the overly broad orders issued under PAA and not being able to issue new-and-improved overly broad orders with the expired-PAA-1-yr-extension-pixie-dust-for-al
I’m not convinced there would be a gap at all. We don’t know what the gap would be, and the administration has a habit of lying and misrepresenting the extent of trouble “following the rules” creates.
But as a matter of statutory construction, there is a possibility for there to be a difference if/when PAA expires. Well, there IS a difference, certainly, for obtaining NEW snoop orders. And as Mary points out, that difference may be negligible too.
Yep, hence the pixie-dust reference. If the President waves his magic wand, it is all legal. I look forward to a day when what the Congress does is actually relevant again.
31 – The paperwork for a NEW snoop order under pre-PAA FISA is more complex, in any event.
and while that is certainly what they tell us, I also remember very distinctly Lamberth indicating that he granted Orders over the phone, sitting in his car, on 9/11 and that there are plenty of routes for true emergencies to be addressed.
No one has ever answered his very clear assertion that he granted warrants in minutes without much in the way of paperwork (in large part, I’m sure, because of the specific nature of the requests vs. the datadredging dragnet aprpoaches that seem to be de rigeur now. And the “good Jim Baker” also indicated that orders could be obtained in as little as minutes in real emergencies.
ew,
These girls in the T shirt ads
– My butt hurts
– With a shirt like this who needs pants?
How old are they?
I am extremely uncomfortable that I am looking at sexualized kids for profit.
Curious what you are referring to? Rotating Google ads?