FISA Debate and Votes

Sounds like we’ve got two votes coming up–two roll call and two voice votes.

Feingold: Use limit. Gives FISC option to limit use of data collected illegally.

Bond: Recommend veto, reading from Mukasey/McConnell letter directly.

Jello Jay: This amendment would prevent dissemination of any US person data. No need to add another penalty. Amendment gives statute court whether non-disclosure is required. I oppose this amendment strongly.

Reid: Resume Feingold amendments, and time until 5:25 be for debate, and then vote.

Bond: Four minutes each for next vote.

Feingold: Respond to burden bc require govt to identify info about US persons. Kick in only if govt proposes to disseminate information, in which case minimization already requires govt to identify US person information. My amendment imposes no addition burden.

Bond: Makes no sense to exclude information simply becase [it was illegally gathered]. Calls for roll call.

DiFi hanging out with Jello Jay by the table.

Yes (39): Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Bingamen, Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey, Conrad, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Klobuchar, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lincoln, McCaskill, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson-FL, Reed, Reid, Salazar, Sanders, Schumer, Stabenow, Tester, Webb, Whitehouse, Wyden [no Obama or Clinton]

No (56): Alexander, Allard, Barasso, Bayh, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Corker, Cornyn, Crapo, Craig, DeMint, Dole, Domenici, Enzi, Ensign, Graham, Grassley, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Inouye, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lugar, Martinez, McConnell, Murkowski, Pryor, Roberts, Jello Jay, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Sununu, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner, Wicker[no McCain]

Reid: Leahy and Specter, recognized for up to 20 minutes on Tuesday, post-cloture.

Feingold: Bill pretends to ban reverse targeting, so long as govt has interest, however minor, in foreigner they’re targeting. Amendment says govt needs court order when acquiring communications within the US. DNI said reverse targeting unconstitutional. This just codifies.

Jello Jay: This says if we’re targeting folks overseas that in effect we have to get FISA approval for each and every time it happens. Amendment causes enormous problems. would hamper operations bc every single person would have to have court order. Technical details are classified. Concern is that it would restrict against foreign neighborhood or city. Unnecessary. I urge defeat.

(This may be inaccurate.)

Bond: Explicit prohibition in current bill. Senator Feingoould wants to replace this, require mental gymnastics. This significant purpose throws a different concern. Would recommend veto if adopted. We have a bipartisan bill. Is it cocktail thirty yet?

Yes (38) : Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingamen, Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey, Conrad, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, , Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Klobuchar, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, McCaskill, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson-FL, Reed, Reid, Sanders, Schumer, Stabenow, Tester, Webb, Whitehouse, Wyden [no Obama or Clinton]

No (57): Alexander, Allard, Barasso, Baucus, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Corker, Cornyn, Crapo, Craig, DeMint, Dole, Domenici, Enzi, Ensign, Feinstein. Graham, Grassley, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Inouye, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Lugar, Martinez, McConnell, Murkowski, Pryor, Roberts, Jello Jay, Salazar, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Sununu, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner, Wicker [no McCain]

Reid: Tusday, no morning business, vote on FISA.

image_print
298 replies
  1. DeadLast says:

    Why does the White House give a shit about this amendment or the law? After all, as Bush said a couple of years ago, “the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.”

  2. JTMinIA says:

    Can you tell us what other amendments are up tonight and which are 60s and which are majorities-present?

    And: are Obama, Clinton, and McCain around? They were all there earlier, I think.

  3. Hmmm says:

    Dodd to talk for 4 hours at the end just before final vote. No more talk about the amendments. WTF just happened?

    • emptywheel says:

      The secret reason they don’t like this is because they’re approving huge datamining programs, not just wiretaps. So they don’t want to lose a whole program even if the court finds that they’re illeagl.

      Though basically, they’re saying that legality doesn’t matter, our privacy has to give way to their security state.

      • JTMinIA says:

        I understand the effect of this. I’m mostly wondering why Jello is against it. I don’t see the telecom’s interest.

        • emptywheel says:

          It’s not the telecom. It’s the security state. He’s not entirely motivated by the telecom money, he’s also motivated by a willingness to make sure the IC gets whatever it says it wants.

      • bmaz says:

        The secret reason they don’t like this is because they’re approving huge datamining programs, not just wiretaps. So they don’t want to lose a whole program even if the court finds that they’re illegal.

        Yep. Bingo there.

  4. JimWhite says:

    Hi folks. I got EPU’d on the other thread. Did I really hear Harry say Dodd has cut his “filibuster” down to four hours on Tuesday? If so, I am very disappointed.

    • cboldt says:

      Did I really hear Harry say Dodd has cut his “filibuster” down to four hours on Tuesday?

      Yes. Final passage looks to be afternoon or evening of Tuesday next week.

      • bmaz says:

        Okay, why even bother with a stated and pre-limited 4 hour filibuster? Am I missing something, or is this just a speech, cause it sure doesn’t look or sound like any filibuster? WTF?

        • selise says:

          kabuki.

          remember those posts on the UC – the ones that called it a win for the Ds? i’m thinking that came directly from reid’s office. but i think it was pure bullshit.

          bullshit that we are not supposed to see through (like we did last august).

        • JTMinIA says:

          Agreed. Bond and McConnell counted votes and knew what to do. Reid played the nice guy and got run over again. And now we have to rely on the House to save this???

        • selise says:

          And now we have to rely on the House to save this???

          holt and the progressive caucus.

          and maybe some of the leadership – but only if we can convince them that anything less will be seen for the bullshit kabuki that it is.

        • selise says:

          furthermore… when calling senator’s offices on monday, neither dodd’s nor feingold’s office could explain their lack of objection to the UC (although an aide in feingold’s office called me back to say that it was the way that the senate works).

        • JTMinIA says:

          Feingold is amazing in how he deals with the politics.

          ps. Specter was a no, which is surprising and annoying.

        • JTMinIA says:

          I know it was a snark, but this sort of issue is one where Specter often goes off-party and pro-rule-of-law. I can only hope he’s saving his “bad-boy” vote for something else.

  5. RevDeb says:

    It looks like Jello is in deep conversation with DiFi. Probably patting themselves on the back for doing so much to protect the rule of law.

  6. Eureka Springs says:

    CSPAN screen description of current bill:

    Places flexible limits on the use of information used unlawfully.

  7. Hmmm says:

    The Chyron pretty much sums it up: “Places flexible limits on the use of information obtained illegally”

    Not passing speaks volumes.

    • Fractal says:

      Woohoo, DiFi stood up to Jello Jay.

      Time to claim credit for EW, FDL, Glenn, all the DFHs in the raging blogostan. Too bad she couldn’t also be a leader and bring others along with her.

  8. JTMinIA says:

    Thanks, emptywheel, that makes sense (but in a consistently evil way).

    As to DiFi whispering: “Jay, I’m real sorry, but I’m gunna have to say no. California, you know. But don’t worry, big guy. I’ll be there when it really matters. Immunity is in the bag.”

  9. JTMinIA says:

    As to Clinton and Obama, both were already gone when the final vote on the stimulus package was taken, so they’re probably done for the day. Damn them.

    • selise says:

      How do we defend the House RESTORE bill against this Senate crap?

      i don’t know – it’s going to be tough. because the only reason the restore act is half way decent is that the progressive caucus fought their leadership and won.

        • selise says:

          of course.

          but they did win one against their own leadership late last year when they forced changes to the RESTORE ACT against the wishes of the dem house leadership.

          imo, chances are very very low. but i’m not willing to throw in the towel.

  10. JimWhite says:

    For one of the amendments Harry didn’t think would be close, this will be pretty close. Lincoln just became the third crossover? Otherwise pretty straight party lines, so it could hinge on how many show up for each side.
    Woohoo. Spaceman Aye.

  11. JTMinIA says:

    You know, the other person who was missing earlier was Nelson-NE, not that he’s reliable, but it still irks.

  12. PetePierce says:

    I’m catching up, but I assume even though there is a reasonable amount of time before primary and caucus votes resume, neither of the three Senators, one of whom will be President cares enough about S. 2248 to debate or vote on it in the final hours.

    Maverick Hegel just voted with the Republian flock. Facade Specter voted wth the Republcan flock.

  13. Sparkatus says:

    Wow, it’s so much better to be in the Majority.

    Passing bills like PAA, Telecom immunity (I know hasn’t happened yet, but), funding the Iraq War…

    How is it again that through obstruction, the Minority gets exactly what its base wants, but the Majority can’t get what it’s base wants?

    • selise says:

      How is it again that through obstruction, the Minority gets exactly what its base wants, but the Majority can’t get what it’s base wants?

      the majority wants a bigger majority and thinks if they hold the nation hostage unless we give it to them, we will be persuaded to work for Ds like it was 2006 all over again.

      • phred says:

        Just got back, does anyone know why Reid didn’t participate in the first vote? Was he keeping the Ayes as low as possible to save Clinton and Obama from taking too much heat? Nice try. I’m gonna give Obama a call his staffer won’t soon forget…

        • PetePierce says:

          Obama is voting. Clinton is absent. McCain is abset. Huckabee is not there, but says he wants the Bible to substitute for the amorphous Rules of the Senate. He belives God wire taps then to Bush’s ear.

        • emptywheel says:

          No. He will be counted as a no so he could file a motion to reconsider. You will see that he does this on every vote that we lose taht we would like to lose.

        • cboldt says:

          He will be counted as a no so he could file a motion to reconsider.

          Move to reconsider – move to lay that on the table – without objection.

          It’s rare for a motion to reconsider to live more than a few seconds. Nearly all of them are tabled on UC.

      • Evolute says:

        i need the moral support of some compatriots. not interested in listening to the last…

        eight fricking years.

        Not since the hope of the ‘Battle in Seattle’ has there been the broad coalition to change.

        Well, maybe the Feb. 15 world wide march against war. Oh yah, that was only Bush’s focus group.
        never mind

  14. JimWhite says:

    I’m still here, too, but very sad. I have this mental image of the Constitution slowly fading from view.

  15. siri says:

    We had hoped, but I think we kind of all knew who would win out on this. I MUST try and stay future focused, change will never come with the current evil doers in the White House.

    • phred says:

      We had hoped, but I think we kind of all knew who would win out on this. I MUST try and stay future focused, change will never come with the current evil doers in the White HouseCongress.

      There, fixed the typo ; )

      • selise says:

        good correction.

        i would have been happy to have the Ds make a real fight out of it – even with loosing in the end. what i can’t stand it all the manipulation to orchestrate a cave, while telling us they are fighting as hard as they can.

        … i have a severe reaction to being lied to. really, really hate it.

        • phred says:

          … i have a severe reaction to being lied to. really, really hate it.

          You and me both selise, it is the one human failing I find most intolerable and it is the hardest transgression for me to forgive.

  16. PetePierce says:

    Landrieu crossed over voting with the Republican flock on Dodd Feingld. Obama is present and voting, but Clinton and McCain are not.

    On Feingold’s second amenment, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Jello the Jay voted against it.

      • PetePierce says:

        I don’t have a visual, but he voted “aye” on the Dodd-Feingold amendment unless the roll call made a mistake. I promise to double check this when I can get the list in a few minute.

  17. Fractal says:

    EW– How do you do that, get the vote tally in writing so quickly? Thank god for this site, I don’t actually have to listen/watch the horror.

  18. bmaz says:

    Well, if you guys are really bored, on ESPN News you can currently watch a couple of media hungry lawyers driving their reputations into the ground and their client, Brian MacNamee, both into the ground and toward a federal penitentiary.

      • BayStateLibrul says:

        I think he is a former policeman, and apparently doesn’t trust
        the Rocket?
        The drama will continue in earnest next Wednesday, and can Bmaz live
        blog from Waxman’s house?

      • Funnydiva2002 says:

        Wow. That tops the semen-stained blue dress, don’t it?
        Ick.
        The scientist in me is hoping that opposing counsel will ask some pointed questions about how that material was preserved for nearly a decade and whether any test results are reliable after that long, and how do the expert witnesses KNOW that?

        Not that I have ESPN or now diddly squat about the case (I don’t).

        FunnyD

        • bmaz says:

          No, this stuff has no evidentiary credibility whatsoever, even if it appears to have Clemens DNA on it. No chain of custody, totally bizarre and creepy custodian, no way to establish that any traces of illicit substances were not planted on a syringe used for the B-12 shots or whatever. A law student could rip this guy and his evidence into shreds so small you couldn’t see them with the naked eye.

          Selise @135 and EW – sorry about the partial hijack, but I couldn’t take any more of the so called Congress without going totally off the deep end.

        • Funnydiva2002 says:

          That’s what I suspected. Nice to know that my limited legal instincts aren’t too bad.

          No wonder they had to have a press conference–any decent judge would’ve laughed ‘em right out of court! At least, the one that I was a juror for would have–she ran a tight ship.
          FunnyD

    • bmaz says:

      One of said legal beagle geniuses just stated that it is standard practice for people to store bloody needles in a crushed beercan! You can’t make this shit up….

      CHS @116 – You’ve got to be kidding me. This chump should be locked up for terminal weirdness and stupidity. I am absolutely speechless that he is given any credibility; for starters, he avowed to the Feds long ago, maybe over a year ago, that he had no such evidence.. and now to whip this crap out and hold a press conference to announce it…. some of the most bizarre behavior and lawyering I have ever seen.

      • Christy Hardin Smith says:

        bmaz: I’ve been trying to figure out the lawyering on that one, too. Maybe he’s going to pull the Judy Miller “oh, that grocery bag under my desk filled with notebooks” strategery? How they get around the false statements issue on prior evidence given I have no idea…just bizarre.

      • Funnydiva2002 says:

        Uhm. Aren’t there rules about “discovery” that are supposed to keep this “oh, no, Mr Prosecutor, I don’t have any evidence…PSYCH!” crap from going down?
        And does anyone really believe a jury, let alone a judge will buy that “oh, it’s totally SOP to keep bloody needles in old beer cans…it’s true because I say so” stuff? Are they now peremptorily challenging potential jurors for having any noticable capacity for rational thinking?

        Sheesh.
        FunnyD
        Stop giving good attorneys a bad name, you eedjits!

    • JimWhite says:

      I think it was the same as the last vote, but with DiFi moving over to the dark side, where she usually lives.

  19. klynn says:

    My 15-year-old son hopes DC is filled on Tuesday with demanding college students and others standing for the Rule of Law…He does not understand why more people are not making their voice known?

    Imagine Lincoln’s birthday and the day Nero rose to power…hmmm…

    • prostratedragon says:

      Weird, eh. FDR and Hitler are similarly paired. Kind of like two trains running closer and closer together.

      This stuff’s not going down at all well here. Maybe a little wine …

  20. JimWhite says:

    Jello Jay gloating about scaring Senators to vote the right way because they haven’t been “read into” the real situation. My blood pressure is through the roof.

    • bobschacht says:

      “Jello Jay gloating about scaring Senators to vote the right way because they haven’t been “read into” the real situation.”

      Remember last August when a few key Senators were “read into” the threat situation? Turned out to be total hogwash.

      Bob in HI

      • JimWhite says:

        Remember last August when a few key Senators were “read into” the threat situation? Turned out to be total hogwash.

        And boy are those hogs shiny!

        • emptywheel says:

          I worked for Franklin Quest (they bought out the consulting company I worked for; in the process, I got a better company gym, though somehow the women managers didn’t get a separate cherry-wood locker room to hide their garments in like the male managers did). Bennett was a board member. Ergo, I worked for Bennett. Kind of.

      • phred says:

        Well, that’s what the dark side of the force does to a man. Remember the Emperor and Darth compared to their former selves as Senator and Jedi? Here Bennett is a living example of life imitating art ; )

  21. Hmmm says:

    JJ: “If we do this on Tuesday we’ll have an opportunity to conference with the house” == If Dodd filibusters, we’ll lose the chance to conference, and it’ll be his fault, not ours.

    • phred says:

      If Dodd filibusters, we’ll lose the chance to conference, and it’ll be his fault, not ours.

      I know you’re quoting Reid’s viewpoint here, but if Dodd defied the leadership and torpedoed this whole farce, he would never have a finer moment in the United States Senate.

      If he capitulates, it will make reading the letters his father wrote from Nuremberg all the more heartbreaking.

        • phred says:

          My mistake, I meant the Demn Leadersheep’s view generally, but used Reid’s name specifically, which I should not have done.

      • selise says:

        phred – dodd already capitulated when he agreed to last thursday’s UC.

        now the only question is what is going to happen in the house.

        • phred says:

          Is an individual members agreement binding? I thought that was why Reid was so ticked off the other day, because McConnell defied the UC. If so, Dodd should still be able to gum up the works, if he wants to…

        • selise says:

          mcconnell’s monkey wrench was technically legit – just against the spirit of the agreement. what, i think, you are talking about dodd doing would be a technical violation, i don’t think he can do it.

        • phred says:

          mcconnell’s monkey wrench was technically legit – just against the spirit of the agreement. what, i think, you are talking about dodd doing would be a technical violation, i don’t think he can do it.

          You realize you are depriving me of the last shredded vestiges of the merest hope I have, don’t you? ; )

        • selise says:

          ah phred… but given our earlier conversation about being lied to… maybe you better not ask me what i think.

          seriously though, while there is breath, there is hope. we can’t foresee everything that could happen. all we can do is to try to prepare the ground to take advantage of helpful surprises.

          and i haven’t completely given up that the progressive caucus and once again fight and win a battle with their own leadership. it happened this fall, and i didn’t see it coming that time….

    • JimWhite says:

      I really don’t think so. Neither Obama or Clinton voted on the economic stimulus cloture or bill and McCain did. I don’t think I heard a vote from any of the three on the two FISA amendments.

    • Hmmm says:

      PetePierce seems pretty certain, but I haven’t seen any sign of Obama at all. His name was called, as was Clinton’s, but I don’t remember hearing a response.

      • PetePierce says:

        I thought I heard an Obama “Aye” vote before last but given enough time, I will nail it down when I can get a full vote list.

        It would be helpful if C-Span would always post a graphic of who is absent on each vote, and a complete list of who voted for what, but apparently this logic has never crossed their mind. They are on the Senate floor and they could easily arrange to do this.

    • Christy Hardin Smith says:

      I don’t think so — but I don’t know for certain. Am making dinner and trying to watch C-Span at the same time. But I don’t recall either he or Clinton or McCain casting a vote on any of the amendments this evening. Anyone know for certain?

  22. Mary says:

    116- I’m pissed at all of the Dems who we had to work so hard to get elected so they could do Bush’s work for him, but I still wouldn’t call them wads of blood soaked gauze. I give you the creepy and disgusting though.

    Um, you were talking about the likes of Bayh and Rockefeller, right?

  23. emptywheel says:

    I really don’t think Obama voted (ditto Clinton and McCain). The first roll call is, i think, pretty close. The second one is missing at least one Dem who flipped to the dark side, in addition to Feinstein.

  24. PetePierce says:

    From Kos on FISA votes:

    Feingold’s Use Limits S 3915: gives the FISA Court discretion to impose restrictions on the use of information about Americans that is acquired through procedures later determined to be illegal by the FISA court.

    Failed: 56-39

    Democrats willing to cheerfully embrace the United States using illegally obtained information against American citizens: Rockefeller, Johnson, Lincoln, Bayh, and Landrieu.

    Feingold’s S 3913 (reverse targeting):

    Prohibits the government from getting around FISA’s court order requirement by wiretapping an individual overseas when it is really interested in a person in the U.S. with whom that supposed foreign target is communicating.*

    Failed: 38-57

    Democrats who reject the Fourth Amendment: Rockefeller, Feinstein, Johnson, Landrieu and Lincoln.

    Mukasey also told a House committee today he would refuse to enforce any contempt citations from the House and Senate because his unitary executive ordered him not to.

  25. Mary says:

    140 – there really isn’t a “chance to conference” though, is there? The House won’t send back a bill that the Senate won’t pass with such a short time frame. Hoyer and Pelosi standing tough? No way. And the Republicans in the Senate OWN Jay Rockefeller and the OWN Evan Bayh and a boatload of others, Clinton can’t be bothered to show up and vote (and I’m still waiting on the Obama evidence)

    Nothing would come from conference bc the Repubs will stand fast, not fold, and keep Rockefeller in line.

    I have to retract – it probably is ok to call Rockefeller a seven year old bloodsoaked piece of gauze.

    • phred says:

      Mary — My intention is to kill PAA by letting the damn thing expire. So if Dodd can hold things up until the 15 day deadline comes and goes, that is entirely fine by me. Pelosi is as much of a Rethug as anyone who publicly owns up to it, so I expect nothing good to come out of conference, particularly since most of our efforts (faxes, calls, emails) have been directed at Senators, the Representatives may not be feeling the heat sufficiently to not fall for the “oh-my-god-the-deadline-we-must-pass-something” panic that plagues Congress like an infectious disease.

      • cboldt says:

        if Dodd can hold things up until the 15 day deadline comes and goes,

        He can’t, under the rules, if a cloture motion is filed to limit debate on final passage. Also, his getting 4 hours post cloture is itself a deviation upward from Rule XXII. Post-cloture, each senator is limited to ONE hour, but can get time from other senators, up to two hours total.

        • phred says:

          Thanks cboldt, I appreciate the clarification. I just hate being railroaded like this. I was counting on Dodd to at least go down with a fight. Guess that’s not gonna happen. And Russ agreeing to the UC, even though he KNOWS how bad this is. When even your “friends” fail you, what are you left with?

        • cboldt says:

          I was counting on Dodd to at least go down with a fight.

          The buzzphrase “traditional filibuster” conjures up images of an event that is possible, but is rarely effective, and can easily be short-circuited with cloture.

          When 60+ senators are agin’ ya’, there’s only so much time that can be burned up before the fight is over, Losing is inevitable.

        • phred says:

          Losing is inevitable.

          Yes, but some fights are worth fighting if only to stand up for a principle and shame all those unprincipled people around you.

          This is the same rationale that has prevented impeachment, that the fight itself is pointless. It isn’t. In the case of impeachment, I think the evidence would be so overwhelming the Rethugs would finally break ranks out of a sense of self-preservation.

        • selise says:

          Yes, but some fights are worth fighting if only to stand up for a principle and shame all those unprincipled people around you.

          amen.

          well, i’m off to try to get something done. thanks for the company and inspiration.

          i see that now, c-span has the HJC hearing with mukasey scheduled to be shown on c-span only once, and at 3:24 am. well, i’m just going to leave the video recording on all night and hope there are no glitches which prevent me from getting it all.

          hard to think there won’t be a ton of good youtube clips up by morning, but just in case i want to have copy.

          night all.

        • selise says:

          i really thought there was a slim chance to torpedo the bill – but only if no UC on requiring 60 votes for any of the amendments. the Rs had been telegraphing how much they didn’t want to be the ones filibustering, they might have been willing to risk passage of a poison pill. which would leave it up to bush/cheney to veto.

          that’s why i thought the UC was the real capitulation.

        • cboldt says:

          i really thought there was a slim chance to torpedo the bill – but only if no UC on requiring 60 votes for any of the amendments.

          The 60 vote margins could be imposed by cloture, albeit at the price of exposing the GOP as the party who was delaying passage of the bill, and as being insecure that the positions it advocated enjoy majority support.

  26. Hmmm says:

    What is the Senate still doing open? I take it as proof of the non-existence of any respectable deity that it hasn’t been struck by lightning etc. in the last half hour.

  27. emptywheel says:

    Hey, how cool am I. I got 98% on that first vote: didn’t realize Reid remained on the side of the good, and misspelled Isakson’s name. Otherwise, perfect.

    So, no Obama. No Clinton, no McCain.

    • randiego says:

      very cool, I’d say.

      dang, go into a meeting and when i come out there’s a zillion more comments.

        • Hmmm says:

          Suggestion: Make an alphabetical-by-last-name checklist on paper ahead of time, so you only have to mark in columns and not transcribe the names.

        • PetePierce says:

          There should be some type of live streaming straight from the Senate computers to their website on key votes. It could be done, and if you knew how much they much money was wasted every day on Senate procedure, it’d drive you nuts.

        • emptywheel says:

          Nah, I’m just going to put pre-transcribed lists of reliable dems, Rs, then have the unreliable dems to stick in. You really only need to worry about 12 votes on any given leg.

        • Hmmm says:

          Whatever you’re doing, it’s obviously working well. Like an animation director I used to work within range of always says as his highest available form of flattery: “Keep going!”

    • phred says:

      Hey, how cool am I.

      Very very cool indeed. Much cooler than any of our elected representatives… err… wait a sec, that’s not saying much, is it?

  28. Funnydiva2002 says:

    Oh, BMAZ
    I meant the gauze thing beats the blue dress for ick/yuck factor, not as any sort of evidence.
    FunnyD

      • bmaz says:

        Okay; I’ll second that you are pretty cool here. Seriously, and, as you know, I am a skeptical kind o guy; so this is a valuable endorsement. Now, can you explain what value Dodd’s four hours have at this point? I don’t understand the minute procedural things of Congress (get these idiots in a court and I know the score; but not so much here); but i just don’t see the point if it is time limited and then the vote already scheduled…how is that a “filibuster”?

        • CasualObserver says:

          Yes, and will they enclose him in a small chain-link fenced area? A “free speech zone”?

          Here you go chris, knock yourself out. But only right here, and just for a little while.

      • selise says:

        it was fun.

        before this week, i’d posted all of 3 youtubes.

        did 18 more this week. i think i’m getting better at it. practice and all that…. *g*

  29. siri says:

    The last 4 days WERE amazing and an amazing effort, Marcy.
    I sincerely THANK YOU! I will be imbibing this eve. Cold night here, cold and empty feeling where my patriotism once lived.
    I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

  30. PetePierce says:

    Just to keep things complete and classy, Obama Girl didn’t vote in Super Tuesday in NJ where she is registered. She was partying hard at the Superbowl on Sunday, and reported she always gets sick after flying, and couldn’t make the trek accross the Hudson River.

    I don’t know her FISA analyses yet.

  31. Hmmm says:

    (OT: Murtha on C-SPAN 3 making plain the sorry state of the US military after all these years of misusing it.)

  32. Mary says:

    177 – more than fine by me too. I’m guessing some fix is in and he won’t do it, or they’ve sold him on the need to get to conference on the bill with the house and ”get our intelligence agencies the tools they need” (as if anyone needs a bigger tool than Bush).

    But I’d love to see a real filibuster and the PAA expire. Or at least someone making a damn effort. I’m wondering if the cut cables and the routing of lots of calls through the US is capable of being used as a more pressing reason – that if they have to get warrants for foreign to foreign communications routed through US switches and now almost all the ME traffic is routed through the US (and can’t you see Bush and his compliant thugs and criminals at NSA, CIA, DOJ, etc. working on something like that with no care or concern for consequences?) then it makes it ”more necessary”?

    I don’t get my hopes up over anything anymore, other than the possiblity now and then of hearing cogent thought from Leahy, Feingold and Dodd.

    But its really like watching someone be crucified to have to sit by and see what the Dems like Rockefeller and Reid do to them.

    And to watch our ”wonderful” Presidential candidates be no-shows, with no-guts.

    • Hmmm says:

      I’m wondering if the cut cables and the routing of lots of calls through the US is capable of being used as a more pressing reason – that if they have to get warrants for foreign to foreign communications routed through US switches and now almost all the ME traffic is routed through the US (and can’t you see Bush and his compliant thugs and criminals at NSA, CIA, DOJ, etc. working on something like that with no care or concern for consequences?) then it makes it ”more necessary”?

      Well, I’m wondering whether the cable cuts were done to force some eye-opening stuff (maybe authentic, maybe faked) through US toobz specifically so that they could be intercepted and shown to Senators as convincers for the amendment votes we’re seeing. “Do you want to be the one responsible for denying us access to this, and the American deaths that will inevitably follow?”

  33. Hmmm says:

    This thing that happens here at EW’s place is a very very valuable thing. Very central to the ideals of American Democracy. My thanks to all of you who participate in it.

    • selise says:

      earlier today i was thinking about how i feel i’m loosing (or have lost) something i value a great deal – the ideals i thought we americans held jointly as a legacy of those who came before us. not that we lived up to those ideals, but that they were the gold standard we strove for. (not to say every group of people has a legacy every bit as valuable – but this one was mine).

      …. and i decided that just because that’s lost for the country, i refuse to consider it really gone. i propose to consider us the holders of those ideals while they are in exile.

      • Funnydiva2002 says:

        OK. Can I help?

        FirePups as Keepers of the Flame?

        I can still hate that those ideals are in exile, right? And revile the powers that have created that situation?

        FunnyD

        • bobschacht says:

          n response to selise @ 209

          OK. Can I help?

          FirePups as Keepers of the Flame?

          I can still hate that those ideals are in exile, right? And revile the powers that have created that situation?

          Little Bluebird of Happiness reporting for duty here!

          Here’s what my new sweetie sent me today, not knowing of these goings on:

          One day a farmer’s donkey fell down into a
          well. The animal cried piteously for hours as
          the farmer tried to figure out what to do.

          Finally, he decided the animal was old, and the
          well needed to be covered up anyway;

          it just wasn’t worth it to retrieve the donkey.

          He invited all his neighbors to come over and
          help him. They all grabbed a shovel and began
          to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the
          donkey realized what was happening and cried
          horribly. Then, to everyone’s amazement he
          quieted down.

          A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally
          looked down the well. He was astonished at what
          he saw. With each shovel of dirt that hit his
          back, the donkey was doing something amazing.
          He would shake it off and take a step up.

          As the farmer’s neighbors continued to shovel
          dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it
          off and take a step up.

          Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey
          stepped up over the edge of the well and
          happily trotted off!

          Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds
          of dirt. The trick to getting out of the well
          is to shake it off and take a step up. Each of
          our troubles is a steppingstone. We can get out
          of the deepest wells just by not stopping,
          never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.

      • phred says:

        Eloquently put selise. I was thinking along the same lines this afternoon myself. I believe deeply in the values that I was raised to believe the United States stood for. It is a shock to find that those values are no longer represented by our government. As you said so well, we have never succeeded in living up to the promise of the Constitution in the history of our nation, but it was always what we worked toward as a society, even when certain individuals would push hard in a different direction. This is beyond discouraging. In part, because I never before appreciated how much money could actually buy…

        • selise says:

          i may be a cynic, but it’s only in reaction to current events. i really want to be a romantic (at least in my superficial understanding of what those terms mean – i’m sure all you lit people will lol at my misunderstandings).

        • phred says:

          I’m not a lit person, so you’re on safe ground with me ; )

          I have been disappointed in the Dems pretty much my entire adult life, but especially during the Clinton period when they failed to live up to their promise (as in potential, not as in campaign promises). From health care to NAFTA, they always caved to corporate interests. So I’ve been disappointed for a long time, but it’s only been the last year that has pushed me over the edge into full-blown contempt. I simply could not hold Congressional Dems in lower esteem than I do right now.

  34. phred says:

    I don’t get my hopes up over anything anymore, other than the possiblity now and then of hearing cogent thought from Leahy, Feingold and Dodd.

    That just says it all, doesn’t it? The occasional coherent thought on subjects of law or governance from our elected officials. That’s what we’re reduced to. Pathetic. Utterly utterly pathetic.

    Well, these days we elect professional fund raisers and nothing more. We get what we pay for I suppose.

      • phred says:

        Exactly bmaz, because someone else has already paid a LOT more. Government for sale to the highest bidder.

    • Funnydiva2002 says:

      I don’t get my hopes up over anything anymore, other than the possiblity now and then of hearing cogent thought from Leahy, Feingold and Dodd.

      That just says it all, doesn’t it? The occasional coherent thought on subjects of law or governance from our elected officials. That’s what we’re reduced to. Pathetic. Utterly utterly pathetic.

      Well, these days we elect professional fund raisers and nothing more. We get what we pay for I suppose.

      Which, as working (or under- or unemployed) stiffs, is diddly squat because us ordinary folks are too busy putting gas in the car and groceries on the table and paying the mortgage to have much left to “pay to play”.

      Utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic.

      FunnyD

  35. siri says:

    Was there ever a time in our history where the minority in the Senate did put a total stop to whatever the majority was trying to accomplish? I’m serious, I don’t know. Is this a first in our history or has it happened before?

    • cboldt says:

      Was there ever a time in our history where the minority in the Senate did put a total stop to whatever the majority was trying to accomplish?

      Yes. From 1806 to 1917, there was no cloture widget. A single senator could stop anything. The cloture rule in 1917 was a 2/3rds rule, not 3/5th, and it was darn tough to invoke the resulting time limit on debate.

      • siri says:

        Thank you cboldt. I need to understand more fully the rules and procedures, need a good source to read to do that. I appreciate your response!

    • cboldt says:

      Was there ever a time in our history where the minority in the Senate did put a total stop to whatever the majority was trying to accomplish?

      In recent history, the DEMs blocked funding of Whitewater investigation, and confirmation votes on about a dozen Circuit Court nominations. Minority blocking is common.

      • phred says:

        If minority blocking is common, why was it implemented so rarely in the first 6 years of this presidency?

        • cboldt says:

          If minority blocking is common, why was it implemented so rarely in the first 6 years of this presidency?

          It was implemented alot on judicial nominees. On legislation, I’d guess it was relatively rare because the legislation was, for the most part, agreeable with both parties.

        • phred says:

          So why was it so unthinkable to block Alito or Roberts, if they used it a lot with judicial nominees? Perhaps I have been unfairly critical of the minority Dems, but I thought that they had successfully blocked very little of the Republican nominees or legislation.

        • bmaz says:

          Roberts was too smooth and capable. I hate to say it, but elections do have consequences, and as much as I disagree with him, even I think Roberts probably had to be confirmed. He may not agree with our thought process, but he has the pedigree, intelligence and temperament to be a justice. Alito is a whole different matter; that sucked big time….

        • RevDeb says:

          actually we held a kind of control of the Senate the first 2 years when Jeffords—bless his heart and head—abandoned the cretin party. But that’s only a technicality.

        • bmaz says:

          Yep, and its not that I didn’t have plenty of complaints about Daschle too; but he was one hell of a lot better and tougher than Reid.

        • phred says:

          That’s right, thanks for the reminder : ) I remember wanting to send him flowers when he did that : )

  36. emptywheel says:

    Roll call’s up–and I’ve fixed the list on this post.

    Bayh voted no on the first, yes on the second
    DiFi voted yes on the first, no on the second
    Lincoln voted yes on the first, no on the second
    Salazar voted yes on the first, no on the second

    Dorgan voted yes on the first, did not vote on the second
    No presidential voted
    Nelson-NE did not vote (I don’t think he’s there today)

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, which I guess means I was right on the second vote: I got Lincoln and Salazar wrong, forgot Reid again, misspelled Isakson, and didn’t notice Dorgan gone.

      So a 95%

  37. CTuttle says:

    Okay, so what Dems do we need to work on, I know Inouye is getting my personal attention and Bob’s, whom else do we need to massage…?

    • JimWhite says:

      Okay, so what Dems do we need to work on, I know Inouye is getting my personal attention and Bob’s, whom else do we need to massage…?

      I’ll get on the phone first thing tomorrow to Nelson (FL) to thank him for voting the right way today and to encourage him to do the right thing on the remaining votes. I think I also will call Dodd’s office to encourage him to find a way, any way, to keep fighting. Obama and Clinton deserve calls, too, for all the good that will do. Feingold could use more encouragement, too, I would imagine.
      I honestly don’t know if I will be able to calm myself down enough to call either Reid or Rockefeller’s offices, but they are completely lost causes, anyway.

      • siri says:

        And how does that work? Really? I call and call and call. And I end up giving my voice and opinion and stance (and it’s WIDE) on these issues that would never BE on any congressional floor but for the Bush Crime Family. And it all goes to some staff member, some person being paid to take my call. What, really, is the point in all of it? No senator or representative (snake or reptile) can EVER be reached personally, they just get windy messages, MAYBE. And believe me, those messages do not seem to make one whit of difference when it’s vote time on either floor! I’m so discouraged with the calling that I’m forced to wonder really, what good does it do, does it matter at all?.

        • JimWhite says:

          I’m so discouraged with the calling that I’m forced to wonder really, what good does it do, does it matter at all?.

          We do it so that, when it is over, we will know that we have done everything we possibly can. We appear to have lost this battle, but even it is not formally over. While we force them to fight this battle, it makes it at least a little bit harder for them to take whatever next step they have in mind. As far as I know, average citizens are not yet disappearing from the street. If the capitulating Dems know, even at a murky level, that there still is a dedicated, bright, informed and tenacious group watching their every move, they just might try to prevent something even worse when it comes down the road.

          Do you want to see new atrocities and know that you didn’t do what you could to prevent them?

        • jnardo says:

          Of course you’re right. We have to keep watching and blogging and crying, but Lord it’s painful. The one bright spot is that they’re so busy covering their already committed high crimes and misdemeanors that they have less time to think up new ones.

          But, Lord it’s painful…

        • siri says:

          Right. DAMNED good point! And I DO have to sleep with myself every night. I won’t go down, ever, in any time, in any way, without a fight. You’re totally right JimWhite. I’m sooooo glad to have this site, these folks here fighting with me, I did actually do this all by myself for years! Good to have some company, and I really appreciate you and your passion and insight. You have made me giggle more than once and FDL and Associates are the best.
          God forbid that the disappearances NEVER start happening in MY COUNTRY!
          Thanks! And I’m pouring you one, here, BigJim!

  38. cboldt says:

    some fights are worth fighting if only to stand up for a principle and shame all those unprincipled people around you.

    Absolutely. But Senate rules circumscribe the extent of that activity – timewise.

    Senator Dodd effectively used the combination of a looming holiday recess and insisting on 30 hours of post cloture debate (on the motion to take up FISA) to push FISA from December into January. Thurmond’s successful (record long) hold the floor and talk was effective — because it too was pushing against an extended recess.

    On the subject of cable breaks, I read a “Wired” article this morning that says breaks are common. 25 ships out there (I assume in the entire world) working full time repair of submarine communications cables. Storms can provoke damage, and I guess the region has been under some serious weather.

    Not to say to put the tin-foil away, just sayin’ that without a handle on the normal rate of breakage, it’s not possible to judge whether 5 in a week is way out of the norm.

    • klynn says:

      Yeah, I posted the latest Wired story as a link this AM

      O/T

      We can take this up later so we don’t juke up the thread but just to update:

      http://afp.google.com/article/…..iKCqGksCSg

      One Internet cut explained, but four others still a mystery

      3 hours ago

      CAIRO (AFP) — A ship’s anchor severed one undersea Internet cable damaged last week, it was revealed on Thursday amid ongoing outages in the Middle East and South Asia, but mystery shrouds what caused another four reported cuts.

  39. bmaz says:

    Folks, I just couldn’t take any more of the stinking Senate earlier; but I want you to know that seeing all of you engaged, informed and ready to take the fight to whatever the next level may be brings cheer to a heart that aches profoundly for the Constitution. The fight, however, was not lost today; the fight was lost, done and over last week with the UC and the extension passage. There was nothing to learn today but exactly how craven your, and my, Democratic leadersheep are and how little the men, and woman, that would be the next king care for our Constitution, privacy, heritage and the lives and blood spilled since the founding of this country to establish and protect the same. The same undoubtedly holds true as the coup de gras is applied by our Congress in the next couple of days; however, we should let them have it with all barrels in the meantime, because it is the right thing to do; we must be sanguine about the realities though.

    The next level must then move to the upcoming election. Any time any congressperson is within your time and reach, personally or electronically, they must be made to answer for this travesty and made to understand that they have violated the public trust and must promise to take a public hard stance to correct this or face being fired from their jobs. They should be flat out shamed at each and every opportunity.

  40. cboldt says:

    So why was it so unthinkable to block Alito or Roberts, if they used it a lot with judicial nominees?

    Three reasons that I can think of – high profile of SCOTUS, compared with other judicial nominations. Only one SCOTUS nominee was ever subjected to a cloture motion, Abe Fortas (who was sitting on SCOTUS) to be elevated to CJ. That was objected to by both parties because Fortas was corrupt. After the nomination (to CJ) was withdrawn, Fortas resigned SCOTUS altogether. The DEMs disingenuously used Fortas as an example to justify their historically unprecedented “use” of cloture on a dozen or so Circuit Court nominees.

    Second, and related, it’s damn difficult to block a SCOTUS nomination by refusing to hold committee hearings. Although, that reminds me of Bork, who was blocked in committee, also a historical first, AFAIK. But serves as an example of blockage that had no discernable political penalty (didn’t cost anybody an election).

    Third – turnabout. One day the shoe will be on the other foot.

    • phred says:

      Thanks cboldt (and bmaz). Perhaps my memory is selective, dwelling on the failures rather than the successes when the Dems were in the minority. Still doesn’t excuse their conduct in the majority this past year. Of course, one could make a solid case that I’m in an inhospitable frame of mind at the moment, and not able to recollect much good done by Congressional Dems ; )

  41. merkwurdiglieber says:

    Exile is the appropiate term for the feeling you get from exposure to
    the slow motion death of what you have believed was your country. Camus
    wrote of that as valid sensibility for the circumstances and Joan Didion
    wrote an article called Vichy Washington for the NYRB, now collected
    in an anthology Political Fictions, which I recommend for reading this
    winter. There just is not the democratic instinct left in enough of them
    to function, it has been educated and schooled out of them. Adorno,
    Horkheimer and Marcuse wrote of all this decades ago, it reads like last
    week now. Organization man, hollow men, “plastics” all led to this sad
    day. Be of good cheer!

    • siri says:

      Excellent post! I sign many things these days in the following manner:
      siri
      Sovereign Citizen of the FORMER United States of America

      I DO feel exiled!

      • Loo Hoo. says:

        I hope you’ll let us know your decision and the reasons behind it. I’d totally love to know your thinking. I doubt there are any of us who wouldn’t vote for whichever candidate is ours in November.

  42. masaccio says:

    I want Harry Reid to resign so we can appoint the real majority leader: Mitch McConnell. Joe Lieberman can change parties, and the republicans can easily stop all work, and everyone will know who the toads are.

    • siri says:

      IN A PERFECT WORLD, and WHAT I WANT TO SEE is Reid just GO AWAY, and Whitehouse step up to the plate. I’d LOVE IT if Whitehouse took the leadership in the senate! Did you hear him today???? He is so profound, accurate and professional and RIGHT ON target! Would be fun to have a Whitehouse in the White House someday, huh? lol

  43. bmaz says:

    The WaPo and WaPo.com get a new and much younger publisher. I am optomistic this will help, but it sure can’t hurt. bmaz’s first recommended move; can Fred Hiatt and hire someone decent. Plenty of candidates currently out there with all the carnage occasioned by the Tribune Company both on it;s original properties and, especially, the legacy of Otis Chandler (a really great guy).

  44. masaccio says:

    The NYT has a long article on the economics of newspapers. The problem is that most of the newspapers are valued on the basis of their performance in the stock market. They cut the quality of their product, and amazingly enough, no one wants to buy it. So, fewer advertisers, less income, and more quality cuts. Sounds like a death spiral to me.

    Maybe the price will fall low enough so that we progressives can buy one and make a profit on the investment.

  45. AZ Matt says:

    The Fourth Branch of Government sets us straight: Cheney Defends Use of Harsh Interrogations

    Thanks Mr. Vice President for your vast Right-Wing Wisdom cuz we are just poor drones here to serve the greater good of your Glory! May your pacemaker battery have long life!

    WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday vigorously defended the use of harsh interrogation techniques on a few suspected terrorists, saying that the methods made up “a tougher program, for tougher customers” and might have averted another attack on the United States.

    “A small number of terrorists, high-value targets, held overseas have gone through an interrogation program run by the C.I.A.,” Mr. Cheney said in an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, around the same time that the head of the Central Intelligence Agency said one of the most controversial interrogation methods, “waterboarding,” may be illegal under current law.

  46. MadDog says:

    OT, but something I found most valuable to read – Larry Johnson has a post up over at his blog entitled: “What McCain, Obama and Clinton Need to Know About the Surge“.

    John McCain’s constant carping that the surge is working and his promise (threat?) that he will continue this policy is an amazing mixture of foolishness and ignorance. Fortunately, Senators Obama and Clinton have not engaged in the same mindless cheer leading. The truth is simple–the surge is irrelevant. The following articles by Mark Perry help set the record straight about what the surge has and has not accomplished…

    The 2 articles by Mary Perry that Larry highlights can be found here:

    US MILITARY BREAKS RANKS, Part 1 – A salvo at the White House

    US MILITARY BREAKS RANKS, Part 2 – Troops felled by a ‘trust gap’

    Well worth the read and even more importantly, the pondering.

    • AZ Matt says:

      I am hoping that McCain gets cocky now that he is da Man! Is the “surge” sustainable? I doubt it. They will call it soething else soon, give it a new look, a cool new name. Of course the USA will be broke by the end of it.

        • AZ Matt says:

          Ya, I know. It will get worse before it can get better and that’s only if we don’t have the 3rd Bush term of McCain.

          Emasculating the Family Leave Act. Just think right now how many people have made use of that, are making use of it, or will be in the future. I would say he is going to piss off more people. Compassionpits conservative eh?! Goddess/God has his ticket to Hell waiting.

      • MadDog says:

        And if Mark Perry’s writing about The Surge get you pondering, then you might want to continue your pondering with Scott Ritter’s almost “companion piece” about The Surge over at Truthdig entitled “Iraq’s Tragic Future“.

        Takes the analysis in another direction about what it may mean to Iraq.

        • bmaz says:

          Why oh why didn’t we just go back to fully co-opting Sadaam; he was clearly malleable? At the worst, just let him and his country play itself out; it was well on the way and simply presented no threat o anyone (except, of course, Iran and that wasn’t all bad it turns out)? Dumbest. Move. Evah.

      • bobschacht says:

        In response to MadDog @ 271

        I am hoping that McCain gets cocky now that he is da Man! Is the “surge” sustainable? I doubt it. They will call it soething else soon, give it a new look, a cool new name. Of course the USA will be broke by the end of it.

        McCain always seems to run better as underdog and seems to mess up when he’s the front runner. That’s both the good news (because he has about 6 months to screw up bigtime before the R’s convention) and the bad news (because, as seems likely, if the R’s nominate him, he’ll be underdog to the Democrat.)

        Bob in HI

  47. bmaz says:

    Man, that last one has to be the most poorly written comment I have made in some time; and that is saying quite a bit, because they are never all that good.

    • AZ Matt says:

      Long days are the cause of mental instablity that can be remedied by a stiff drink or two. Man wasn’t made to think too much and I offer the Republicans as an example.

    • prostratedragon says:

      Mix enough outrage and despair, and stuff like that happens.

      And you’re right.

      And “we” will never have more control over Iraq’s oil than would have been available by continuing that policy.

  48. prostratedragon says:

    Because no day is complete without one throughly inappropriate laugh, this from The Ladykillers (1955) entry at imdb:

    The producers originally rejected director Alexander Mackendrick’s choice of Katie Johnson for the role of Mrs. Wilberforce on the grounds that she might be too frail for the project, and so they cast a younger actress – who died before filming began.

  49. cboldt says:

    From
    the legislative calendar
    , here is an edited version of the modified sections of the UC agreement that pertain to FISA and floor action leading to its passage:

    – on Friday, February 8, and Monday, February 11, 2008, all remaining amendments be debated and all time used.
    – on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at a time to be determined, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in an order specified later, with two minutes of debate prior to each vote …
    – upon disposition of all amendments, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 2248 [cloture motion hasn’t been filed yet]
    – if cloture is invoked on the bill [it will be, easily],
    — the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) be recognized to speak for up to 4 hours [this is a courtesy time extension, Rule XXII limits an individual senator to one hour of post-cloture debate]
    — the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) for up to 15 minutes; provided further,
    — recognition of the Managers (Bond, Rockefeller) for up to 10 minutes each,
    — the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) for 20 minutes each,
    — the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended

    No votes today -or- Monday, only debate. Typical Senate schedule on an urgent matter. The cloture motion intended to be voted on Tuesday is timely filed, if filed today. Tuesday will be stacked vote day, followed by speechifying, followed by passing the bill in basically the DNI-prescribed form.

    • phred says:

      Thanks for the schedule cboldt. Good to know that Senators get to continue debating in an empty chamber, while most of their colleagues can get out of town for a nice long carefree weekend if they wish. But, the cameras will be rolling for the few left behind to “debate”, the show must go on.

      • cboldt says:

        Good to know that Senators get to continue debating in an empty chamber, while most of their colleagues can get out of town for a nice long carefree weekend if they wish. But, the cameras will be rolling for the few left behind to “debate”, the show must go on.

        Situation normal.

        It’s possible to whip up some tension and drama for the Tuesday votes, but I think all the votes (by the Senators) are settled. Actually, I think the positions were settled by about July last year.

        When it comes to keeping a tight reign/rein on the people, Congress and the Executive are two peas in the same pod.

  50. selise says:

    thanks cboldt. how fucking depressing.

    and OT in this thread, but i suppose more likely to be seen here… i did get good rips of the HJC and the HPSCI hearings from C-SPAN’s overnight delayed broadcast. at the moment there are only 12 clips up from the HJC hearing with mukasey (and most of them are from the house) – which i think is just wrong. if that situation doesn’t correct itself soon, i’m going to make some clips just so people can see what we witnessed. please let me know if there are any requests.

  51. cboldt says:

    I have asked Senator Rockefeller to have a pretty good idea of what will be in the final package as it comes out here. So I think it would be to everyone’s benefit that he and Senator Leahy, Senator Bond, and Senator Specter work with their House
    counterparts to see if they can work on a package to bring back to us.

    That’ll be “the manager’s amendment” – negotiated very much out of public view.

    • JTMinIA says:

      If you can still listen to Bond, then you are a stronger person that I.

      Given the cost of Dell monitors these days, I can’t do that anymore.

  52. cboldt says:

    Bond’s argument, absence of immunity would cause increased risk of terrorist attack against the telecoms, is incredible.

    I figure the Senate will adjourn before 3 p.m. Noonish adjournment is typical on Fridays. They have all day Monday to burn up remaining debate time, and Reid announced a “use it or lose it” policy. I also figure there is no concern about losing the debate time under FISA, especially since the more strenuous objectors have time on Tuesday, after the cloture vote, when the viewing audience will be larger.

    • PetePierce says:

      Simple question although my timing may make it EPU’d.

      I know quorum calls “I suggest the absense of a quorum” are usually done to delay to give some time to work out logistics, strategy, or to allow time to get a Senator to the floor. Is there any other purpose for them, I’m missing, and if they are simply a delaying tactic, is that why they are often terminated suddenly?

      • cboldt says:

        Before getting to your question … FISA and Senate schedule.

        At 1:00 p.m., Senator Reid filed a cloture motion to limit debate on S.2248. Then he ran through a few items of legislative minutia, including reading for the first time a bill to again extend the PAA by 15 days. That (S.2615) is insurance of a sort. I think there are about 4 or 5 bills that extend the PAA by various time periods.

        Then at 1:05 he adjourned the Senate until 2:00 p.m. Monday.

        The general purpose of quorum call is to make sure a quorum is present. The Senate is an odd legislative body, it likes to create a fiction in the written Record that it is working in the chamber, and that the laws it passes are done with a quorum of Senators present. The reality is they do 99% of their work behind the scenes, and most of the chamber time is done with fewer than 10 Senators present.

        At any rate, under normal procedure, a legislative body has to be doing SOMETHING while it is (supposedly) in the chamber, and the only thing it can do when none of its members are presents is have the clerk ascertain the presence of a quorum. All the other stuff that comprises action while in session (motions, debate, voting) requires participation by a senator.

      • cboldt says:

        if they are simply a delaying tactic

        Better viewed as a time filler. The alternative to debate and decision making. Most of the time filling is done with zero or few senators on the floor, but I have seen “Is a quorum present?” asked when all 100 Senators just finished a roll call vote. Filling time “on the Record Book” so they can negotiate “off the record book.” Those “chamber full” quorum calls are usually brief – a couple minutes at most.

        I like the 2/3rds of the Senate ratifying treaties, when the reality is that only 2 Senators are in the chamber, and one of those two is presiding. “All in favor rise” “All opposed rise” — the two who are present usually giggle at the fiction, but dutifully go through the sit/stand formality.

Comments are closed.