Roll Call–Then and Now
Phred asked what we had accomplished with all our work in the last five months. I’ve got a more specific post (among other things, calling out my Senator Stabenow for another one of her ridiculously bad votes). But for now, here are Democrats who voted for the Protect America Act, in August (bold are those who voted differently today; final vote was 60-28-12):
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
And here are the Democrats who voted for S.2248 today (bold are those who changed their vote since August; underline did not vote in August; final vote was 68-29-3).
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
So, if nothing else, we flipped DiFi and Amy Klobuchar’s vote. DiFi issued a statement about her vote–emphasizing that without exclusivity, she couldn’t support the modernized FISA.
I have decided to vote against the FISA Bill before the Senate. This is not an easy decision because I strongly believe that we need to modernize the law relating to the gathering of foreign intelligence, and I support many of the provisions in the Senate bill.
However, I believe this bill didn’t do enough to protect against the assertion of executive power. I have said on many occasions that without the additional language to strengthen and tighten the exclusivity already in FISA, I could not support final passage.
I offered an amendment on this very issue. My amendment, which would have made it clear that FISA is the excusive authority for wiretapping U.S. persons for foreign intelligence purposes, received well more than a majority of this body – 57 votes. But it did not receive the 60 votes required. Given this strong vote, I remain hopeful that similar language will be included in a FISA bill that goes to the President.
There should never be another warrantless surveillance program. And I continue to believe that there should be a strong statement in law making it crystal clear that FISA must be followed, period.
Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate did not include such language and simply didn’t go far enough in protecting against executive power . That’s why I voted against the Senate bill.
[my emphasis]
Apparently, though, 19 of her colleagues have no worries about unfettered executive power.
i think there is another measure of our progress – and that is the effort that was put into deceiving us with their kabuki.
compared to august, the senate put a lot more effort into their kabuki. we’ll be a heck of a lot closer to success when they conclude that their kabuki won’t fool us and they might was well give us something real.
We’ve forced them to admit what they were doing.
Unfortunately, knowing what was going on didn’t persuade many Senators to change their vote.
not this time… and i do think that while we’re seeing a lot more clearly, we still have a ways to go yet. each time something like this comes to a head, we’ll build on the last time and do better pulling back the curtain and at getting the word out.
That’s a good point selise, at least now they know we are paying attention.
Thanks for such a prominent answer EW : ) I was away for a bit and just about to check back for an answer on the thread below, when I saw your new post.
So if I read this correctly, we gained 2 (Feinstein and Klobuchar on the good side), but still lost 4 (Baucus, Kohl, Rockefeller, and Whitehouse). So a net loss of 2? Of course, that’s hard to say for sure given the not-voting-camp in August (unfortunately I can’t distinguish your italics from non-italics in the post).
Perhaps a better way to look at it is that we gained 1, up to 29 from 28.
Sorry if it seems a discouraging question, I’m a numbers kind of person and I wanted a measure of our success. However, I think selise found that in the gyrations the Senate went through to make this sow’s ear look like a silk purse. I do think that is no small thing.
The only yes vote today who didn’t vote in August is Johnson. In August, the non-voters were liberals and Republicans. Today, presidential candidates and Lindsay Graham.
So that puts us back at net loss of 2 then. Well, lets hope Conyers sticks to his guns and doesn’t whither at the first sign of a BushCo onslaught.
p.s. epu’ed from previous thread. fisa is on the house’s schedule for tomorrow.
Good gravy, there’s that word again. How in the hell did “modernizing” ever become an issue? Who was tasked with explaining the technical advances that demand modernizing of FISA?
There’s NOTHING technically that demands a change to the law. It’s still incredibly simple: get a warrant.
That’s the same line the city of LA used to get people to vote for their expanded (but slightly smaller) utility tax: they needed to ‘modernize’ it because it was missing DSL and Blackberries.
All you really need to know here is that it applied to landline and cell phones already. The ‘lowering’ is from 10 percent to 9 percent. They kept saying they weren’t going to be taxing the Intertubes (no, just all the accesses to it), and that the money would be used for the police dept (I’ve heard that one at least twice before and it was a lie both those times, too).
I hope they at least got a high-five from Joe Lieberman.
these dems make me sick. no allegiance to the constitution.
WTF is wrong with Whitehouse? I don’t get it.
Me neither. I’m none too pleased with Webb either. IIRC weren’t we all pleased as punch when they won in 2006? Now? Not so much.
Remember, he got one of his two amendments passed (minimization; he was a co-sponsor on the Haggis amendment). Doesn’t make it right. But…
For someone who talks so soberly about the rule of law, getting a voice vote on his amendment does not seem to make up for the atrocity which is the bill itself.
VERY disappointed in him. He’s dropped considerably in my esteem. Not that he cares a fig.
He had been my hero on the Judiciary Committee. Would like to hear his justification for the vote. Generally I have thought Whitehouse, Webb and McCaskill were thinking democrats who support the constitution. What was going on in their heads today?
Webb of Virginia? I thought he was a smart guy. Maybe not.
I’m hoping that there will be some good news coming out of this depressing news day. I’m crossing my fingers that Donna Edwards can pull it out in my old childhood stomping grounds tonight.
Early results (6% reporting) has her up 55-41%
EW, shouldn’t Stabenow be on the list of Dems who voted in favor today? I don’t see her name in the list.
Oops, my bad. I must have heard wrong during the roll call, I thought she voted aye. Clicking through the link, she’s listed as a nay.
She voted for immunity–I suspect she voted for one of the “compromise” immunity provisions. But she voted against the bill.
One more question, how many votes did Obama cast today? I know he was around for the Feinstein amendment, but I don’t know how long he stayed. He was gone before the final vote. Just curious…
AFAIK, just the DiFi vote–but then, that’s the only one that was close. Had we gotten Ben Nelson, Hillary, and Norm Coleman, we woudl ahev won. And if we lost by one vote, we could blame it on McCain. Unfortunately, Hillary pissed that one away.
My response to a letter I received today from Senator Stabenow, which sounded as tho she was against immunity…
I don’t get it. Your letter says the opposite to how you voted. You voted AGAINST the Feingold amendment. So now we’ve lost our rights. Can you please explain to me WHY you voted that way? (And please don’t send me a form letter filled with propaganda.) Levin got it right, in my mind. He voted for it. I don’t understand why most Democrats quiver and cave in to this administration’s lawless demands. Please explain it to me. Giving the telecoms retroactive immunity. Why? If they aren’t guilty, they don’t need immunity. I believe this is just to cover the illegal acts done by Cheney and Bush. And now even the courts can’t be involved. So this country is back to being ruled by a King—all with your help. I’m very disappointed that the senators who voted for immunity and voted against the Feingold amendment forgot that they’re supposed to uphold the Constitution. But corporate money apparently overrides that.
I’m deeply disappointed, discouraged—and angry.
Of course, DiFi voted for cloture on the bill, voted against final passage, and then put out a press release touting her vote against. This, by the way, is called “pulling a Lieberman.”
She also voted against stripping out immunity.
I honestly think you’re snatching defeat out of victory here. Of course she voted against DOdd’s immunity. That’s because she had her own immunity provision that was not horrible (much better than Specter/Whitehouse’s amendment, for example).
She expressed reservation about immunity and exclusivity–and actually acted on the latter. I think CA would be much better off celebrating DiFi for voting no when her attempt to craft a moderate compromise failed than to beat her up for the interim votes. You guys made A LOT of progress with DiFi on this bill–and if you can keep that momentum up, she might someday look like CA’s Senator.
I hope that part of that was me quoting you on this bill.
We shouldn’t have to be screaming at them to get them to do the right thing, though, or even to hear what people are saying.
Of course she voted against DOdd’s immunity. That’s because she had her own immunity provision that was not horrible (much better than Specter/Whitehouse’s amendment, for example).
I agree with your point about DiFi, but I rank the anti-immunity provisions in different order.
Leave the cases “as is.” That preserves the rule of law, the autonomy of the judicial branch, and still permits the government to play the state secrets card.
My second choice would be Specter/Whitehouse, because, while it substituted the defendant (who isn’t at much financial risk either way), it left the action in the same (public) courts, etc.
My last choice if Feinstein’s. FISC is a secret court. It’s bound to follow classification orders from the executive.
what was up with sheldon RI?
April 2000 …
http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00059.html
Would love to have Whitehouse on here or the Lake to explain his vote…
I cannot fathom what rationale Whitehouse could offer that would in any way mitigate the fact the he voted to throw out the 4th amendment.