Harry Mitchell's statement on his support of the FISA bill...

Further clarification of Harry Mitchell's reasons for voting for the FISA bill that gives President Bush free rein to spy on American communications, without judicial oversight, if such surveillance can be justified as 'involving' foreign terror suspects.

The text of an email sent out from the Mitchell For Congress campaign to his supporters -

Dear Friends,

Over the last few days, since returning from Washington, I have spoken with many of you about my recent vote to update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

Many of you have been supportive of my vote, but I know that some have also had important questions about how I reached my decision. I have found that in these circumstances, explaining my reasoning has been helpful, has answered many questions and has cleared up some misconceptions about the new temporary law.

That is why I'm writing to you today – to personally share with you how I reached my decision.

Earlier this year, a federal intelligence court judge secretly declared that elements of the Administration's secret wiretapping efforts were illegal. As you know, I have been very critical of the Administration's secret program and believed that many of their surveillance efforts should have been subjected to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

While the Administration was correct when it argued that that 1978 law FISA was archaic, I believe that instead of circumventing the law, the President should have asked Congress to make the necessary adjustments to provide for the new communications scenarios we experience in 2007.

Thankfully, the court ruling has forced the President to do just that, and Republicans and Democrats agree that we must update FISA. Certainly, we must do so in a way that provides our nation's intelligence community with the tools it needs to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, but at the same time, protects our civil liberties.

To keep us safe, Congress had to act quickly. Between the court's ruling and the President's decision not to ask for the FISA law to be updated earlier, our intelligence community's ability to collect the foreign intelligence information it needs had been compromised.

This is particularly troubling because of recent report of increased terrorist "chatter" and signs that terrorists may be making "dry runs" to prepare to attack our nation's airports.

It is also troubling because the recent National Intelligence Estimate made clear that Bush Administration's inability to eliminate al Qaeda continues to threaten our security. As you know, al Qaeda continues to rebuild itself and is moving ahead with plans to attack Americans.

As a member of Congress, I take these threats seriously. Over the last few weeks, I have received classified briefings that convince me the threats we face today are real and that we must do everything we can to protect Americans.

That is I why I believe Congress had a responsibility to update the FISA law, at least on a temporary basis, before the August recess.

Early last week, House leadership put forward H.R.3356, a smart, sensible compromise that both strengthens our security and protects our civil liberties. The President had sought to make FISA changes permanent, but under this legislation, the new FISA rules would sunset after four months – enough time, I believe, for Congress to learn how the new rules work and what changes we need to make before passing an even better permanent fix. I supported that version, as did a vast majority of Democrats, but it did not garner enough votes to pass.

At the same time, the Senate passed S. 1927 – its version of the FISA update – by a wide, bipartisan vote of 60 to 28. There were a few important distinctions between the House and Senate versions. For example, instead of expiring after four months, the Senate version expired after six months. But the Senate version did include a provision that was particularly important to me: it required that surveillance must be approved by the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, denying the President his request that Alberto Gonzales, whose credibility has been seriously compromised, be able to sign off on surveillance alone.

Unfortunately, after passing its FISA bill, the Senate recessed for the month of August, denying the House an opportunity to work out differences between the two pieces of legislation. And those of us in the House were faced with an important decision: allow the archaic FISA law to remain unaltered during the month of August and continue to hinder our ability to collect foreign intelligence at a time of increased risk, or pass the Senate compromise. I take my responsibilities of keeping our country safe seriously and I supported the Senate compromise because I do not believe we can allow another month to pass, while Congress is in recess, before updating the FISA law.

Let me also be clear about what this legislation does: while it authorizes our intelligence community to seek records from communications providers relating to communications between individuals outside of the United States, it absolutely does not allow for the warrantless electronic surveillance of communications between individuals within the United States.

More importantly, because this law is temporary and will expire in only six months, it will allow the Congress to openly debate this important issue in the manner it deserves.

I know some of you will have honest differences of opinion on this important issue. But I hope that this will help you have a better understanding of how I reached my decision.

Thank you for your continued support,






Harry

While I respect Harry's reasons for supporting the bill, my two fundamental reasons for opposing it are unchanged -

1. Supporters of the bill, Harry included, have seem to have predicated their support on trusting the word of a President and his administration officials who have exhibited no professional integrity or personal honor since they entered office more than 6 1/2 years ago; and

2. Supporters of the 'no judicial oversight' provision have presented absolutely no evidence that warrants help terrorists.

Later...

Karl Rove Leaving The White House...

...unfortunately, it's a voluntary exit accompanied by effusive "fare thee wells" and book deals, not an involuntary one accompanied by indictments and perp walks.

From AP, via Yahoo! News -

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove, President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist, announced Monday he will leave the White House at the end of August, joining a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 1/2 years of the administration.

{snip}

Rove is expected to write a book after he leaves. He disclosed hisdeparture in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

"I just think it's time," Rove said in an interview at his home on Saturday. He first floated the idea of leaving to Bush a year ago, the newspaper said, and friends confirmed he'd been talking about it even earlier. However, he said he didn't want to depart right after the Democrats regained control of Congress and then got drawn into policy battles over the Iraq war and immigration.

"There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family," said Rove, who has been in the White House since Bush took office in 2001.

Ah yes....when the world gets you down - when contempt of Congress citations are imminent, indictments loom on the horizon, when your guy is termed out so the prospects for trampling over honest elections are dim - what else is there to do?

Wrap yourself in flag and family, and get out while the getting's good...

Wonder if the book he is threatening to write will be published before or after the inevitable pardon???

My guess: Before, so that everything he admits to in order to pump book sales can be covered by the pardon.

Reaction to the resignation, courtesy MSNBC, here.

Later!

It's only fair...

Over the weekend, I received an email from Jerry Gettinger, a long-time Democratic activist here in Scottsdale, with a copy of a letter he sent to Harry Mitchell concerning the FISA vote last weekend.

With his permission, I am reprinting it here, edited for formatting (Congressional websites don't do paragraphs well :) ) -

I’ve been following the activity regarding your vote on the FISA bill. I’ve made no secret of my support and admiration for your ability and ethical demeanor. You are a breath of fresh air in a musty old room.

However, I must say I can’t for the life of me understand your vote on the FISA act and the explanation you gave to Random Musings. I believe you are sincere in your explanation.

But I can’t help but think that there is something you’re missing.

In your response to Craig, you said something about a better FISA bill in the future. There is no good FISA and there wasn’t a need for this FISA! The FBI and the various other agencies were able to obtain warrants in a timely fashion.

What isn’t understood is that Bush and his cronies want to operate outside the law legally. And that is something a Harry Mitchell needs to stop, not approve. The disturbing trend to do away with our civil rights and those guaranteed by the Constitution must be reversed and I fully expect Harry Mitchell and the other Harry Mitchells to do something about it.

I cannot understand the view that a bill that allows our government to listen in on our conversations without a warrant and therefore without any reason is a reasonable law. It isn’t, it wasn’t, and it will never be!

If the testimony of Attorney General Gonzales isn’t enough to create distrust of the current administration, I don’t know what it will take. So please don’t say that you are looking for a better FISA. Instead, look for the restoration of our civil rights. That is the kind of laws we need at this time.

Sincerely,

Jerry Gettinger

First, let me thank Jerry for the support (and the regular readership! :) ). While this blog was started as nothing more than an outlet for Blue thoughts in Red State Hell, it's gratifying and humbling to know that there are people who actually like to read what I write.

Secondly, while the comments by Jerry and me, and by many grassroots Democrats, in fact, are specifically directed at Harry Mitchell and the 40 other House Democrats who voted for S1927, there were 186 Republicans who voted for the bill, and they deserve our anger, too.

Much of our anger and disappointment with the 41 Democrats is due to high standards; simply put, we expected better of them. Thus far, we have let the Republicans off easily, probably because we didn't expect any better of them in the first place.

That isn't fair to the Democrats.

I see two possible resolutions to that unfairness -

1. Lower the standards that we expect Democratic officeholders to meet; or

2. Raise our expectations for all officeholders, and let them hear about it when they fail to meet those standards.

Can you guess which option I favor?

If you live in a district represented by Republican Congresscritters Shadegg, Renzi, Franks, or Flake, write or call and express your feelings about their votes to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of partisan power plays.

It's only fair, after all.

Later!

Housekeeping note...

On a post made earlier this week, an anonymous reader left a comment that I felt stepped over the line of propriety for the kind of discussion that I'd like for this blog; in addition, it had a quote in it that read like a Republican press release.

I asked the writer to provide the source for the quote, and advised that if he/she did not do so, I would take the comment down until one was provided.

Another reader was able to track down the source for me (something for which I am grateful!). While I still think that the content of the comment is questionable, the source doesn't appear to be Republican-related (though I reserve the right to investigate further).

As such, the comment will be left up; the only change is that I've turned off anonymous commenting.

Google user IDs are anonymous enough.

People should be willing to stand behind what they say here (cyber-ly speaking). While 'cpmaz' isn't my real name (sit down and take a deep breath - the shock will pass :) ), most of the local folks that I write about, including Harry Mitchell and his staff, know who I am. If I write something that they wish to discuss, they know how to contact me; if there is something I want to discuss with them, they're a phone call or email away.

Earlier this week (but after the post in question,) I spoke with Seth Scott, Congressman Mitchell's Communications Director. He explained Harry's reasons for his vote, and while I still strenuously disagree with that vote, I respect that he didn't try to evade the issue.

Bottom line - If they can stand behind such a widely-criticized vote, and I can publicly stand behind what I wrote about it, it's not unreasonable to expect something similar from commenters here.

If this change discourages any future commenters, that's unfortunate but necessary, I believe.

I also believe that this blog will be the better for it.

Thank you for your patience, and have a great weekend...

Highlights of last night's LD17 Dems meeting

Last night's meeting of the LD17 Democrats was pretty straightforward...

...Tom Kociemba of the Apollo Alliance spoke enthusiastically about the need to start changing our economy to a clean energy one, specifically discussing the Alliance's "Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence."

...Don Bivens, candidate for the Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, spoke to the group for a few minutes. The election to select a new chair (to replace the departing David Waid) will be held at this weekend's meeting of the State Committee in Prescott.

...Three of the candidates for Tempe City Council spoke briefly. Corey Woods and Rhett Wilson have websites up already; incumbent Mark Mitchell's should go live shortly.

Note: Katie Nelson of the AZ Rep reports that Joel Navarro of the Tempe Human Relations Commission has also taken out nomination petitions.

...and in perhaps the biggest news of the evening, Chair Doug Mings and Vice-Chair Ed Hermes announced the biggest fundraising event ever for the LD17 Democrats, to take place this fall -

Chili con Dems, a chili cook-off with special guest Governor Janet Napolitano (whooo hooo!) will take place on Saturday, September 22. More details soon, or contact district chair Doug Mings at dougmings[at]gmail.com.

More later...

Infrastructure lasts forever, right???

Sometimes I hate being right...

Almost 10 months ago, I wrote a post about an acronym on some campaign signs that I didn't know the meaning of, "CAWCD."

[Note: While this weekend's FISA vote has generated more comments as a topic, the comments are spread out over 4 posts; to date, at 10 comments, the CAWCD post remains my single most-commented post.]

As I learned at the time, it's the acronym for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the group that serves at the board of directors for the Central Arizona Project (CAP). CAP is the canal that brings water from the Colorado River to central and southern Arizona.

The post went over the list of candidates for the boards, gave brief evaluations, and eventually made some recommendations.

A couple of those recommendations included recommendations against certain candidates, using phrases like -

Janie Thom was noted for bringing partisanship to a non-partisan body when she was a member of the Mesa City Council. There's no reason to think that she would be any different here, and that's not was the CAWCD or the state needs.

and

However, the CAWCD deals with our *water*. That's a serious subject that affects all of us, and it requires serious people to address it.

Well, earlier this evening I was researching the text of an anonymous comment that was left on another post, a comment that really read like a Republican Party press release.

I didn't find the source of the text in the comment, but I did find something on the website of the Maricopa County Republican Party that makes that CAWCD post look prescient.

From the "Things to think about" page of the MCRP website, posted by Lyle Tuttle, Chair -

CAP Tax Reduction!!

Monday, July 02 2007 @ 08:13 AM MST
Contributed by: lyle
Views: 5

It is working! See what happens when you vote for less spending?

The following from Jean McGrath:--------------------------------------------------

I forgot to mention that the tax rate reduction from 8 cents per $100 to 6 cents just barely squeaked by at the CAP Board meeting on June 21st.

All the votes Maricopa Republicans got for me, Gayle Burns, Pam Pickard and Janie Thom paid off.

Lisa Atkins voted against the tax rate reduction.

The final talley [sic] was just a few percentage points (we have weighted voting) in the win column.

Thank all Republicans for their support.

Promises made, promises kept.

Jean McGrath

Yup, the candidates that I suggested avoiding are now board members who are doing what I suggested avoiding - turning our water supply into a playpen for a partisan experiment in irresponsible ungoverning.

And they're proud of that.

Last week, Desert Beacon in Nevada wrote a great piece on the perils of defunding long-term infrastructure maintenance in the name of short-term tax cuts.

The tax cuts are 'short-term' because eventually, the price has to be paid, whether for maintaining or for not maintaining the roads, bridges, dams, and other components of our infrastructure.

And, as the victims of last week's bridge collapse in Minneapolis found out, that payment is sometimes exacted in twisted steel, shattered concrete, and crushed bodies.

It's time to start expecting that our elected officials, and candidates for elective office, are people who are forward-thinking and take seriously the responsibilities of governing. Note that I didn't mention political parties in that statement.

Certain issues that are fundamental to governance, such as dealing with corruption, providing basic services, and creating and maintaing the infrastructure for our society, really *must* be addressed in a nonpartisan way.

'Nuff said...

BTW - the 'Lisa Atkins' mentioned/criticized in the MCRP quote is one of the candidates that I recommended voting for, not least because of her professionalism.

Just tootin' my own horn... :))

Renzi Keeping His Options Open

While he and his falling Congressional career look like burnt toast and smell like burnt toast, apparently he believes he has a chance of landing butter-side up, so he's keeping his campaign paperwork in order.

Earlier this month (2 Aug 2007), he filed with the FEC Forms F1A (Statement of Organization) and F2A (Statement of Candidacy) for the 2008 campaign.

This is hardly evidence that he has decided to run again, but it definitely leaves open the possibility.

And, depending on how things play out, he's so untouchably radioactive that may actually be the best thing for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Later!

Maybe there's a silver lining after all...

...to the FISA bill/Bush power grab...



Courtesy Dan Wasserman of the Boston Globe...

Short Attention Span Musing...

During the tumult of the last few days over the FISA bill and the number of Democrats that crossed over to support the imperial Presidency aspirations of Bush, a few things came up that deserve a little attention...

...Turns out that there are more-or-less matching bills in the House and Senate that clarify journalist shield laws.

From The Register (UK) -

US bloggers set for journalistic shield

A US bill that would shield journalists, including bloggers, from revealing their sources has cleared the House Judiciary Committee, an important stage in becoming law. There is already legislation in the UK which protects journalists and bloggers.

The US Free Flow of Information Act protects journalistic sources generally, but does include several exceptions regarding terrorism, national security, imminent death and trade secret leaks.

However, there is a gap in the proposal that is far more relevant to most bloggers than those exceptions, exceptions that most of us will never have to worry about. More from the article -

The modified bill which passed the committee on 2nd August included a provision that limits its protections to those who make "financial gain or livelihood" from their journalism.

This essentially means that most individual bloggers, who may make a small income from Google adverts, seem unlikely to get protection – though this will depend on how broadly the courts interpret "financial gain".

Maybe this is my cynicism showing, but that 'modification' sounds an awful lot like something that a lobbyist for a corporate media conglomerate would have put in to reduce competition from independent amateur journalists such as bloggers.

Like yours truly, and most people who write blogs.

Note: the bills are HR2102 and S1267, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. Those numbers might be good to know if someone wanted to contact their Congresscritter and suggest broadening the protections to amateurs. {hint, hint :)) }

...California's Secretary of State, Debra Bowman, did something that warmed the hearts of everyone who loves democracy, and raised the hackles on Jan Brewer's neck. Secretary of State Bowman decertified the electronic voting machines made by some of the industry's biggest players...

Also from The Register -

E-voting gets bitch-slapped in Calfornia

California's top election official has decertified electronic voting machines made by the industry's four biggest vendors, in response to a report that highlighted their potential for election tampering.

The move by California Secretary of State Debra Bowman effectively bars the machines of three of the manufacturers - Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic - unless new measures are implemented to safeguard against abuse.

Bowen also decertified e-voting machines sold by Election Systems and Software, which didn't turn over source code and other materials in time to be tested in in a "top-to-bottom" review designed to assess the security of all ballot machines. ES&S machines could be certified for use in the future.

There have been hundreds of articles on this topic, but none had quite so evocative a headline. :))

Wonder how AZ Secretary of State Brewer is going to defend her own approval of the same machines from the same vendors for use in Arizona's elections?

The announcement from Ms. Bowen is here.


...Hillary Clinton may not have lost the nomination over the weekend, but she made it clear that she's DLC to the core and not trying to appeal to the Party's grassroots.

A strong defense of big-money lobbyists will tend to do that.

From The Atlantic Online -

"A lot of those lobbyists whether you like it not, represent real Americans," she said. "They represent nurses, social workers" -- here the audience began to boo -- "and yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people." "I just... I just ask you to look at my record." Never, she said, in her 35 years of public service, had she bowed to the will of a lobbyist. But she would not change her mind.

Her speech at YearlyKos may bring in more corporate and PAC donations for her campaign, but donations aren't votes and chasing corporate cash so blatantly will cost her more votes and support than the money she receives will buy.


...Wonder if Nissan had a certain Republican legislator from Lake Havasu in mind when they started development work on their latest car...

From BBC News (UK) -

Nissan studies drink-proof cars

Japanese carmaker Nissan has unveiled new technology designed to detect whether a driver has been drinking.

It includes odour sensors that monitor breath, detectors which analyse perspiration of the palms, and a camera that checks alertness by eye scan.

If John Kavanagh (R-LD8) found ignition interlock devices so onerous that he proposed repealing the law making them mandatory even before it went into effect, what would the introduction of these cars into Arizona make him do, have a seizure??

Of course, perhaps a campaign contribution from a Valley Nissan dealer would soothe his nerves...

Later!

Events Calendar

Tuesday, August 7 - Monthly meeting of the LD17 Democrats at the Pyle Center in Tempe. Featured guests: Tom Kociemba from the Apollo Alliance and Don Bivens – Candidate for Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Information exchange at 6:30 p.m.; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.

Thursday, August 9 - The Scottsdale Transportation Commission will meet to discuss and take citizen input on the update to the city's Transportation Master Plan. 5:30 p.m., Human Resources Pinnacle Room, 7575 E. Main St., Scottsdale.

Sounds mundane, and it probably will be, but this is the kind of thing that really gets tempers going. Should be interesting.

Saturday, August 11 - The State Committee of the Arizona Democratic Party meets in Prescott on the campus of Yavapai College. Among the items on the agenda is the selection of a new State Party Chair. For more info, contact your district chair or the ADP at (602) 298-4200.

Tuesday, August 14 - Valley Metro (aka - Phoenix-area public transit) will be holding an open house/presentation/call for public input on its proposed new fare structure at the Tempe Public Library, 3500 S. Rural (near the Pyle Center.) The open house starts at 5:30 p.m.; the meeting starts at 6.

The proposed fee structure, from Valley Metro's website -

Base fare of $1.25, without transfers, for local bus and light rail
Base fare of $1.75, without transfers, for Express/RAPID bus
Eliminate tickets, tokens and transfer slips
Introduce selling all day passes at $2.50 on board local bus and light rail and $3.50 on board Express/RAPID bus
Introduce 3, 7 and 31-day passes valid on first day of use
Increase the price of the 31-day pass:
From $34 to $45 for local bus and rail
From $51 to $68 for Express/RAPID
From $17 to $22.50 for discount fares
Continue Bus Card Plus, juror and homeless programs

Saturday, August 18 - The LD8 Democrats present a Presidential Straw Poll from 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. Advocates for each candidate will speak and refreshments will be served. Call 480-596-8350 for more details.

Thursday, August 23 - The LD17 Democrats present the film "In Debt We Trust" as part of the Big Picture Film Series.

7:00 p.m. at the Escalante Center in Tempe. Free of charge, and the public is invited.

Later!

Harry Mitchell's response...

Since I posted my letter to him concerning the FISA bill, it's only fair that I post the email response that I received this afternoon...

August 6, 2007

[cpmaz's address]

Dear Craig:

Thank you for contacting me in regard to your concerns about the recent update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

I agree with you that we must work toward a better FISA law that protects our civil
liberties and provides our intelligence community with the tools they need to protect our homeland from another terrorist attack.

While far from perfect, I believe that S-1927, the Protect America Act, is a reasonable, temporary compromise that will enable the United States to gather vital foreign intelligence while Congress continues to debate how we should best update the FISA law. While I understand that Americans will have different opinions on this issue, I believe it is especially important to be clear about what this legislation does and does not do.

The new FISA law does authorize the government to seek records from communications providers relating to communications between individuals outside of the United States. At the same time, it protects the constitutional rights of American citizens, legal residents, and visitors. It does not authorize warrantless electronic surveillance of communications between individuals within the United States.

In reaching this compromise, Democrats won two key concessions from the Administration.

First, while the President sought to make changes to the FISA law permanent, Congress, in a bipartisan way, demanded that these changes only be temporary and expire in six months. After that time, Congress will carefully review the new guidelines and determine what changes we need to make. When that review is completed, we will negotiate a better, more permanent fix.

Second, the change to FISA denies the President his request to allow Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to unilaterally authorize any new surveillance. In recent months, Gonzales has given members of Congress on both sides of the aisle reason to doubt his candor and trustworthiness on this issue. As a result, S-1927 requires not only Gonzales's approval, but the approval of the director of national intelligence.

Ideally, I would have liked a bill closer to the House version, H.R.3356. While I voted for H.R. 3356, this legislation failed to win House approval. Furthermore, with only 28 Senators having voted against S-1927, it was clear to me that we still have much work to do to build a consensus about what should be included in a final, permanent change to FISA.

These are difficult issues, and building that consensus will take time. I believe S-1927 will give us that time while also providing our intelligence community with the tools they need to keep us safe and protecting our constitutional rights.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. If you have any other questions or concerns on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

HEM/jw

No editing, wiseass snarkery, or commentary besides this:

On this one, he was wayyyy wrong.

Later!

The Roll of Dishonor for S1927

It seems that I'm not the only person interested/utterly ticked-off by Congress' passage of S1927, the FISA update bill that removes judicial oversight of the terrorist surveillance process.

Site traffic on both this blog and on Congressional Report - AZ5 (think 'All Harry Mitchell, All The Time) has spiked* over the last couple of days.

Almost all of the extra hits are from people searching for the roll calls from each chamber of Congress for the bill; more specifically, most of the searches are looking for a list of which Democrats crossed over and voted to give George Bush freedom from judicial oversight.

For those people, here's the lists -

The Senate vote can be found here and the Democrats voting for this measure were:

Mikulski (MD), Bayh (IN), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Feinstein (CA), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Inouye (HI), Klobuchar (MN), Conrad (ND), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), and Webb (VA). Of course, Lieberman (R in all but name-CT) voted for the bill, too.

The House vote can be found here, and the Democrats voting for the measure were:

Mitchell, Altmire, Barrow, Bean, Boren, Boswell, Boyd (FL), Carney, Chandler, Cooper, Costa, Cramer, Cuellar, Davis (AL), Lincoln Davis, Donnelly, Edwards, Ellsworth, Etheridge, Melancon, McIntyre, Matheson, Marshall, Lipinski, Lampson, Hill, Higgins, Herseth Sandlin, Gordon, Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Rodriguez, Ross, Salazar, Shuler, Snyder, Space, Tanner, Taylor, Walz, and Wilson (OH).

* "spiked" is a relative term; under normal conditions, this site gets the same number of hits in a month that R-Cubed or AZ Congress Watch gets in two days.

Now, it will take 25 days. :))

"Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."

Pete Townshend wrote the words and Roger Daltrey sang them more than 35 years ago, but the words are just as apt today.

Last year at this time, Congress was nothing more than a White House lapdog, ecstatic over whatever tablescraps were thrown its way and cowering at the mildest furrowed Presidential eyebrow.

Less than a year ago, more than 40 Democrats won election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time. They were part of a 'Blue Wave' that came about in major part because of the nation's disgust with the Republican culture of corruption in Congress and the White House.

They were supposed to bring about a change in D.C.

They were supposed to repair some of the damage to the country that has been wrought by more than 7 years of Republican contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Failing that, even with an evenly-divided Senate and a veto-pen wielding President, they were supposed to at least stop the bleeding; they were supposed to stop the 'worst of the worst' legislation from reaching the President's desk.

Thousands of people worked for hundreds of thousands of hours to help them get where they could do the most good for their districts and for the American people.

So how did nearly a third of the 'Blue Wavers' thank their supporters?


By joining the Republican drive for an imperial presidency.


Last night, 41 Democrats, including 'Blue Wavers' Harry Mitchell, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill, Tim Walz, Heath Schuler, Charlie Wilson, Zack Space, Jason Altmire, Chris Carney, Nick Lampson, and Ciro Rodriguez paid back all of their voters, volunteers, and contributors with a knife right through the Constitution.

By a vote of 227 - 183, 23 not voting, the House passed S1927, a bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to give the President and Attorney General carte blanche to wiretap and otherwise electronically eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects' communications and any Americans suspected of being associated with them.

The kicker: As long as they say that the "primary target" of the surveillance is a 'foreign' terror suspect, there's absolutely no judicial oversight required, not even by the super-secret FISA court that never says 'no' to the President.

Even if the surveillance is of an American's communications, in America.

Could someone explain to me how obtaining a warrant within ten days after the onset of such surveillance activities from a secret and rubberstamp-in-all-but-name court helps terrorists?

And if anyone in D.C. should understand the meaning of phrases like 'checks and balances' and 'separation of powers' and why they are so vital to our system of government, it's the guy who taught government at Tempe High for nearly three decades, CD5's own Harry Mitchell.

Whatthehell was he thinking???

I've disagreed with Harry on a number of issues, but they were all 'policy' types of issues, subject to change as the times change. The sorts of things that 'reasonable people of good intent' can disagree about, but disagree reasonably and respectfully.

Those differences were mere window-dressing compared to our difference of opinion on fundamental issues such as the Constitution and civil liberties and Bush's incessant attacks upon both.

With this vote Harry Mitchell, and the 40 other Democrats who joined him, have run the risk of no longer being 'reasonable people of good intent'; instead, they run the risk of being active accessories to Bush and his cronies in their grab for power.

They only change brought about by the vaunted 'Blue Wave' is now that it takes a full-blown stern look to make Congress cower.

Washington Post coverage here.

Good night....

Open letter time - FISA bill

There are a lot of topics that I could write about tonight...

...the parliamentary meltdown on the House floor last night, during consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill...

...the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. standing up to the executive branch by ruling that the FBI overstepped its bounds when it raided Rep. William Jefferson's House office and took legislative documents...

...the fingerpointing has already begun in the case of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis...

...and there are others that would be just as worthy, but there is one topic that is of overriding concern tonight.


Bush's latest attack on civil liberties, the Senate's meek acquiescence, and the House's failure to pass a version of the bill that calls for tighter judicial oversight.

From the Washington Post -

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted.

The legislation, which is expected to go before the House today, would expand the government's authority to intercept without a court order the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who are communicating with people overseas.

Folks, it's time to write letters to our Congresscritters (Harry Mitchell in my case)...

Congressman Mitchell -

As it is late here in Arizona, I'll be brief...

First, let me commend you for your support of HR3356. Even though it didn't gain the 2/3 majority to pass, it was a superior bill to the Senate's FISA bill because of its stronger judicial oversight component.

Later today, it is likely that the House will consider the Senate's FISA bill.

I am writing to strongly urge you to stand fast against the President's attempt to further bypass judicial oversight of his actions.

The fact that he is trying to railroad Congress into passing a bill with no oversight should raise red flags all over Washington, much as it has all over the country.

The President has threatened to keep Congress in session until he gets his way; so be it.

The extra time will allow the House time to take up Congressman Inslee's call to investigate, and if appropriate, impeach, Attorney General Gonzales.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

...And let me now strongly urge everyone who reads this to contact their Congressman or -woman *today.*

Use the email contact form on their websites, or simply pick up the phone and call his/her office, but let them know that it is time to stand up to Bush, and that we are watching.

Perhaps the best argument to make to a Congresscritter would be to mention the idea that the reason for Congress' dismal approval ratings (below Bush's!) could be the fact that one of the reasons for the Democratic wave last year is that we wanted people in office that would stand up for America, and to date, these folks haven't done it.

The House phone list can be found here.

Good night...

Should we be surprised?

Is it any surprise that both of our (alleged) senators, Kyl and McCain, were among the 14 senators who voted against S1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007?

Note: One good (so to speak) side effect of the financial cutbacks by McCain's presidential campaign is that he really is showing up for work more often these days.

In McCain's defense, however, it should be noted that he stated that he voted against it because it wasn't strong enough.

From an LA Times story, via the Houston Chronicle -

In the Senate vote, all the lawmakers opposing the measure were Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Among the six senators running for president in their parties, McCain was the only one to vote against the bill.

He has long railed against "pork-barrel spending," and he argued that the bill did not go far enough to ensure earmarks would be carefully scrutinized.

"This bill does far too little to rein in wasteful spending," he said.

Couldn't find any quotes from our illustrious junior senator; I'm sure he'll pipe in with something in the next day or two.

Possibly, he was too busy avoiding the limelight at Thursday's hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where low-level White House political staffer J. Scott Jennings was on the hot seat over the U.S. Attorney firings. [Washington Post coverage here.]

Karl Rove was supposed to be there, but (stop me if you've heard this before! :) ) President Bush cited 'executive privilege' and forbid him from testifying.

Not that Jennings said much; he cited the same 'executive privilege' assertion many times when refusing to answer particular questions. He did talk about the RNC and emails, though.

I'm not sure where Kyl was during all of this; I caught a replay of the hearing on CSPAN and didn't see him. I could have missed him though as Sens. Leahy, Specter, and Schumer seemed to command most of the camera time.

On the other hand, given Kyl's track record as a dedicated Bush water-carrier, even if he was at the hearing, his only purpose would have been to make sure Jennings toed the White House line.

Have a great weekend!