• commentary
  • FRIDAY OCTOBER 19 2007 9:00 AM

A Hero Rises Out Of The Democratic Shit Heap



Yesterday, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd stood up to Bush, Republicans and even his own party and showed them all what leadership qualities actually look like. The Democrats were about to cave once again, this time on the FISA wiretapping bill, when Dodd placed a hold on the legislation. It is the first time any Democrat has said, “Enough is enough.” As of now, the bill is stalled.

Amazingly, the Democratic leadership had once again given in to our very unpopular president’s wishes to undermine the Constitution. The bill would have given retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies for breaking the law. Democrats were actually going to let companies and the president get away with breaking the law.


Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.

It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats' bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure's passage. It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.


I thought the government was made up of three branches. This article in the Washington Post is a tad misleading, because it is not the government that gave a legal directive, but the White House. This sort of shitty reporting is becoming the norm, however, and it is part of the reason Bush can get away with his nightmarish policies. They also neglected to mention that Democrat Jay Rockefeller is a telecom whore and greased this bill through his committee.

There is absolutely no need to update FISA as the Patriot Act already gutted it. In 2001 Bush authorized the NSA to secretly wiretap Americans without a court order, which happened to be illegal at the time. Telecommunication companies jumped at the chance to give away private citizens records and Bush was on his way to violating the Fourth Amendment. Comcast even charged the administration $1000 for each person’s record they illegally handed over. Currently lawsuits are making their way through the courts and it is not looking good for the telecom companies.


AT&T's customers sued them for violating their privacy in violation of long-standing federal laws and for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Even with the most expensive armies of lawyers possible, AT&T and other telecoms are losing in a court of law. The federal judge presiding over the case ruled against them -- ruled that the law is so clear they could not possibly have believed that what they did was legal -- and most observers, having heard the Oral Argument on appeal, predicted that they will lose in the Court of Appeals, too.


The Democratic Congress has attempted to investigate the administrations circumvention of FISA, but the president has refused to give up any documents. And Vice President Cheney went as far as to actually block telecom companies from testifying before Congress, an act that is not even remotely legal. Now that a federal court has found the entire program to be illegal and unconstitutional, the telecom companies could be liable for damages. But we can’t have that now, can we? Those poor companies took part in a crime because a powerful person asked them to. How can you hold someone liable for something like that? If my mayor asks me to rape a lady, I do it and I shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. That is how America works. If an elected leader asks you to break the law, you do it and you get off totally free.

The Democrats gave in after blustering last week that the the telecom companies would not get immunity until they explained what criminal acts had been committed. Bush said no to the request, and the Democrats then reverted to their normal spineless selves and said, “Okay," because they are the world’s biggest pussies who wouldn’t know power if it was rammed up their anuses. (That is a double body hole sentence – 27 points)

But one man stood up yesterday and put a stop to this egregious crap: Chris Dodd.


The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.

No more.

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today.


As far as I am concerned, someone just stepped to the front of the Democrat presidential candidate line. Barack Obama can blow all the rhetoric he wants out of his mouth, but until he actually stands up and takes action I don’t give a shit or have any reason to believe what he says. We don’t need the “politics of hope” right now; we need the “politics of knock that shit off.” Hillary Clinton runs her campaign by polls and would never have the courage actually stand up for what she believes in, whatever the fuck that is. Chris Dodd showed leadership qualities today, more than any other Democratic candidate so far. Personal strength is the most attractive quality a politician can have and Dodd is looking like the man right now.

So, what does the hold accomplish? Holds are a strange thing. If a Senator wants to hold up a bill, they tell the party leader that they will object and withhold their support from a bill being brought to the floor under unanimous consent. It forces the Senator supporting the bill to follow the actual rules of the Senate, which are much more difficult. They have to make a “motion to proceed,” which requires a vote on whether or not to start debate. The objecting Senator can then filibuster the motion to proceed. At that point 60 votes would be required to stop the filibuster. In a Senate that barely has a majority, Senators generally don’t want to risk angering anyone who they may need on their side some day. It’s an “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” situation.

If Democrats vote to end the filibuster, they are pissing off one of their own – in this case a man who is putting his career on the line for what he believes is right. And now Dodd is that guy in Tiananmen Square standing in front of the tanks. The left’s heroes, like Boxer, Feingold and Obama, did not have the balls to take this action. It is a big deal and a rare show of responsibility, courage and conviction by a politician.

And Dodd is about to get hit with a shit storm from the right. I don’t think we’ve ever seen the kind of attack we are about to witness on just one man. He will be threatened with retribution in the Senate by the right wing. His fellow lawmakers will threaten to filibuster and knock down every bill he introduces from this day forward. Fox News, the president and AM radio are going to go ape shit on the man. But Dodd did it anyway and it is important to recognize.

Dodd is a rare politician and everyone should now take a look at the man as a presidential candidate. At the very least, you can shoot him a message to thank him for doing what is right.

Update:

Majority Leader and amazing coward Harry Reid is threatening to do what he can to push the bill forward. Dodd responds:

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
Sporky

Sporky

I'm lost
September 2007

OCT 19, 2007 07:22 PM

Clidna said:
Dubya = puke eeek mad
Dodd = biggrin love *applause*

Thanks for the link FTR, I sent a note (although I don't know if they'll even read it, as I'm Canadian wink)



Dubya < Anyone.

jknowledge

jknowledge

I'm lost
February 2006

OCT 19, 2007 08:03 PM

Dodd is taking a stand, but what this article leaves out is that the legislation he is trying to make a stand against legislation that HASN'T been written yet! The Senate Intelligence Committee is just meeting to discuss it.

That makes taking a stand against a non-existent piece of legislation look a lot like a presidential candidate playing for votes.

Sorry Chris Dodd;
take a stand on something that actually exists,
like Extraordinary Rendition, where US "officials" send citizens of other countries they "capture" to countries where torture isn't illegal, and torture them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7052155.stm

Honestly, is legislation preventing people from suing AT&T the worst thing that the Bush administration is doing?

Clidna

Clidna

Canada
January 2005

OCT 19, 2007 08:17 PM

Sporky said:

Clidna said:
Dubya = puke eeek mad
Dodd = biggrin love *applause*

Thanks for the link FTR, I sent a note (although I don't know if they'll even read it, as I'm Canadian wink)



Dubya < Anyone.



Fair enough wink

Lil_Louie

Lil_Louie

USA
February 2007

OCT 19, 2007 08:24 PM

It's about fucking time someone in the government grew some balls and stood up to this idiotic asswipe of a "president" and his cronies.
Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
And, "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

OCT 19, 2007 09:10 PM

jknowledge said:
Dodd is taking a stand, but what this article leaves out is that the legislation he is trying to make a stand against legislation that HASN'T been written yet! The Senate Intelligence Committee is just meeting to discuss it.

That makes taking a stand against a non-existent piece of legislation look a lot like a presidential candidate playing for votes.

Sorry Chris Dodd;
take a stand on something that actually exists,
like Extraordinary Rendition, where US "officials" send citizens of other countries they "capture" to countries where torture isn't illegal, and torture them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7052155.stm

Honestly, is legislation preventing people from suing AT&T the worst thing that the Bush administration is doing?



The legislation passed through committee, so I don't know what you are talking about.

The reason this is a big deal is because it has become obvious that the White House will never give up any details of the wiretapping issue. The only way it will possibly come to light is through the lawsuits filed against the telecoms. That is why it is so important.

But keep dismissing if you need to.

orbro

orbro

New York, NY
July 2004

OCT 19, 2007 09:51 PM

yeah i gave the guy's campaign some tiny money for this... thank dodd the dude.

Tigerwong

Tigerwong

Baltimore, MD
February 2005

OCT 19, 2007 09:54 PM

FearTheReaper said:
As far as I am concerned, someone just stepped to the front of the Democrat presidential candidate line.



That's for damn sure.

Eala

Eala

I'm lost
July 2007

OCT 20, 2007 12:29 AM

Wow, I can honestly say that even if I disagreed with his stand, the very fact that he DID take a stand speaks volumes for his character. I'll definately be watching this one come election time.

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

OCT 20, 2007 01:36 AM

JunkyardAngel said:

Trahern said:
Someone had a cunning plan!



Baldrick!



This plan is so cunning if you stuck a tail on it, you could call it a weasel.

grazing_cattle

grazing_cattle

Richmond, MI
August 2007

OCT 20, 2007 02:21 AM

He's not against the bill as far as I can tell. Just amnisty. Is that the only issue we are having with the FISA laws?

geo35

geo35

Minneapolis, MN
January 2003

OCT 20, 2007 05:43 AM

DownNeck said:
put your money where your mouth is and donate to his campaign

https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1318/t/120/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1476




Done. Thanks.

Priapos

priapos

San Angelo, TX
October 2005

OCT 20, 2007 07:35 AM

I find it most sad that a Congressentity standing for something happens so rarely. Have at each other!

Stop the marriage of government and business (aka fascism)!

geo35

geo35

Minneapolis, MN
January 2003

OCT 20, 2007 09:13 PM

Double Post.

redheadedleague

redheadedleague

Pinole, CA
September 2003

OCT 20, 2007 11:38 PM

Really hoping he calls bullshit on his fellow senators in the next Democratic debate. Assuming there is one.

01_Conservative

01_Conservative

San Diego, CA
March 2004

OCT 21, 2007 12:02 AM

Well don't get to high on your horse there. The democrats have been gutting the bill of rights and the constitution for years. It is convenient how liberals all forget about violating our right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention what they tried to do to search and seizure laws. In case you don't know it, had Brady Bill II passed anyone with more than 1000 rounds of ammunition or more than 10 guns ( any guns it did not specify, they could have been antique as well for my understanding) would have had to register as an arsenal with ATF. What that means is that you would have given up your right to search and seizure, because the police, and I mean all law enforcement there, would have been able to just walk up to your house and search it, no warrant involved. Good thing that the Republicans blocked that one.

Also just so you know gun control supports crime. Freedom to carry a weapon deters crime. No you say, let me ask you, If you wanted to rob someone, would you rob someone that might be carrying a gun or would you rob the guy that you knew didn't have a gun? ..... Exactly.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next