• 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
joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

NOV 26, 2007 11:46 PM

FearTheReaper said:
I think I love this man. He made a You Tube question for Republicans for their next You Tube debate.



He was the only one in the debates I've seen that seemed to have any real backbone.

lefthandright

lefthandright

New Zealand
September 2006

NOV 27, 2007 03:07 AM

"Freedom to carry a weapon deters crime." to the person who said this...the death penalty deters crime-there is more people on death row then ever before.....nuclear weapons deter international conflict- you had planes fly into your buildings, you have had your naval boats bombed in foreign ports..you have the highest capita of fire arms in the world, as well as the highest violent crime rate,..your country alone has more murders than every other first world world nation combined.....think about your logic.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 27, 2007 09:43 AM

First of all I am surprised your computer has not been stolen yet.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

Your not too far behind us however in the assaults category.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

Had your car stolen
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_car_the_percap-crime-car-thefts-per-capita

While buying drugs
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences

You know what while the US has some higher and lower levels of crime and we could go back and forth lets just look at the bottom line shall we. with a 29.4% chance of being the victim of a crime in NZ you might not want to run your mouth about how dangerous other places are ok?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

At least your not Australia they took the top spot. your only a close second.....

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 27, 2007 06:15 PM

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.



Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 27, 2007 06:23 PM

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.




But they're trying to take his guns, don't you understand? His GUNS!!!! You can't have freedom without guns!

Not that a Socialist like you could possibly be expected to understand!

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 27, 2007 06:52 PM

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.





No actually he made an attack based on a national stereotype, I called him on it.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 27, 2007 06:54 PM

Zarth said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.




But they're trying to take his guns, don't you understand? His GUNS!!!! You can't have freedom without guns!

Not that a Socialist like you could possibly be expected to understand!



Zarth, that was rather dishonest of you guns were never mentioned by me. He made a rather poorly informed statement based on a stereotype and i simply called him on it. It's more of a people in glass houses sort of thing.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 27, 2007 07:14 PM

Colinism said:

Zarth said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.




But they're trying to take his guns, don't you understand? His GUNS!!!! You can't have freedom without guns!

Not that a Socialist like you could possibly be expected to understand!


Zarth, that was rather dishonest of you guns were never mentioned by me. He made a rather poorly informed statement based on a stereotype and i simply called him on it. It's more of a people in glass houses sort of thing.


Hmm. I direct you to lefthandright's post, which does explicitly mention guns.

Granted, his comment is bigoted and inaccurate, but the very post you were responding to mentioned gun rights specifically. So even f I am to take on your honor that you really didn't mean to bring the issue up, you have to concede that the conclusion that you were participating in a firearms debate was a reasonable one.

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

NOV 27, 2007 07:17 PM

Zarth said:

Colinism said:

Zarth said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.




But they're trying to take his guns, don't you understand? His GUNS!!!! You can't have freedom without guns!

Not that a Socialist like you could possibly be expected to understand!


Zarth, that was rather dishonest of you guns were never mentioned by me. He made a rather poorly informed statement based on a stereotype and i simply called him on it. It's more of a people in glass houses sort of thing.


Hmm. I direct you to lefthandright's post, which does explicitly mention guns.

Granted, his comment is bigoted and inaccurate, but the very post you were responding to mentioned gun rights specifically. So even f I am to take on your honor that you really didn't mean to bring the issue up, you have to concede that the conclusion that you were participating in a firearms debate was a reasonable one.



It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude Colinism is always participating in a firearms debate wink

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 27, 2007 07:35 PM

joker_ said:

Zarth said:

Colinism said:

Zarth said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.




But they're trying to take his guns, don't you understand? His GUNS!!!! You can't have freedom without guns!

Not that a Socialist like you could possibly be expected to understand!


Zarth, that was rather dishonest of you guns were never mentioned by me. He made a rather poorly informed statement based on a stereotype and i simply called him on it. It's more of a people in glass houses sort of thing.


Hmm. I direct you to lefthandright's post, which does explicitly mention guns.

Granted, his comment is bigoted and inaccurate, but the very post you were responding to mentioned gun rights specifically. So even f I am to take on your honor that you really didn't mean to bring the issue up, you have to concede that the conclusion that you were participating in a firearms debate was a reasonable one.



It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude Colinism is always participating in a firearms debate wink

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.



No it was mentioned, however I did not want it to degenerate into a guns thread because regardless of his mentioning guns the content of his post was a bunch of bigoted crap and I was simply calling him on that. smile

Jerks smile LOL

I'm still laughing. biggrin

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

NOV 27, 2007 09:00 PM

Dodd's pretty cool. He also votes along party lines somewhere in the 70-80% range, the lowest of any modern-day politician (yes, even the all mighty He Who Shall Not Be Named), and didn't pussy out and say, "I'm not running yet, I'm launching an exploratory blah blah blah" when announcing his candidacy, like all the other candidates.

Probably the only thing that he's got against him, and the only reason I won't vote for him unless, by some weird, impossible chance, it comes down to him vs. the Republican candidate next year, is the fact that he has deep ties to big business. Damn shame, too.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 28, 2007 04:52 PM

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.





No actually he made an attack based on a national stereotype, I called him on it.



No. You chose to attack his country, rather than trying to debunk anything he actually said. You could have tried actually arguing.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 28, 2007 10:05 PM

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.





No actually he made an attack based on a national stereotype, I called him on it.



No. You chose to attack his country, rather than trying to debunk anything he actually said. You could have tried actually arguing.



So you skipped all the links I posted showing that NZ has a higher overall crime rate than the US? Yes I was being sarcastic but he made a completely biased comment and I called him out and actually backed my statement up with facts and figures.

soulcompromise

soulcompromise

I'm lost
November 2006

NOV 28, 2007 10:21 PM

While in fact one of the things that I'm thankful for this holiday season is that we live in a country where it's relatively safe, I can't say that I'm entirely comfortable that even with the situation the constitution could be so casually interpretted. It's probably not as bad as all that... but when do they stop? Are we going to recive a letter in the mail one day that says "Everything is officially back to normal now."?

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

NOV 29, 2007 02:23 PM

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:

SockPuppet said:

Colinism said:
All I can manage is an attack on your national stereotype.





No actually he made an attack based on a national stereotype, I called him on it.



No. You chose to attack his country, rather than trying to debunk anything he actually said. You could have tried actually arguing.



So you skipped all the links I posted showing that NZ has a higher overall crime rate than the US? Yes I was being sarcastic but he made a completely biased comment and I called him out and actually backed my statement up with facts and figures.



I did see that, and points to you for doing your research. However, what you did was descend to his level by pointing fingers back. That completely fails to address anything he actually said.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next