Our Post-Partisan Utopia

Kerry Howley | June 26, 2008

Over at the American Prospect, reason Contributing Editor Julian Sanchez notes the heroism of the civil-rights-loving, anti-corporatist party:

A "compromise" usually involves parties in conflict each giving something up to seek a middle ground. So it was strange to see the term bandied about on Friday, when the House of Representatives -- after holding strong for months against White House demands -- passed a surveillance reform bill that will grant legal amnesty to telecoms that participated in the National Security Agency's program of warrantless wiretapping, and give George Bush carte blanche to continue listening to our international calls with only the most anemic court oversight.

The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday...goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who insisted that the bill "does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans." She is wrong. It does.

Whole thing here.

Comments

Elemenope|6.26.08 @ 12:39PM|#

Let's see what the Senate does.

Phil D|6.26.08 @ 12:53PM|#

Wow what a disappointment she must be for the liberals... all that big talk before the election, and they've done sweet fuckall but roll over and show their bellies to Bush & co.

|6.26.08 @ 12:54PM|#

Saying that the Speaker lied implies that she understood the bill well enough to know that it permits warrantless surveillance and therefore intentionally obscured the truth.

That Speaker Pelosi understands much of anything seems a dubious proposition to me, making the implication in the post suspect...

|6.26.08 @ 12:54PM|#

Let's see what the Senate does.

Does bending over and spreading their cheeks work for you?

|6.26.08 @ 12:58PM|#

But...but...but I thought if we put the "right people (democrats)" in charge everything would be alright.

Elemenope|6.26.08 @ 1:01PM|#

Does bending over and spreading their cheeks work for you?

No, no it doesn't. I hope Feingold, Spector, or Dodd can muster up an effective filibuster.

|6.26.08 @ 1:11PM|#

No, no it doesn't. I hope Feingold, Spector, or Dodd can muster up an effective filibuster.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!

I'm sorry, but they couldn't get support for a filibuster when both Hillary and Obama supported it, now that Obama is actively supporting the capitulation and adopting right wing rhetoric (Refusing to risk "national security for civil liberties") I would bet that a grand total of dems supporting a filibuster would hover around 10.

On the plus side, Schumer is making some noise about it too but I don't think it is gonna mater.

Episiarch|6.26.08 @ 1:12PM|#

Are the 100 days up yet?

|6.26.08 @ 1:14PM|#

Aside from the laughable nondifference presented by the new Democratic majority, Pelosi joins a long line of idiot Speakers. Like the Whip and similar positions, Speakers are usually known for their party loyalty and purity more than for anything resembling sense or capability. Of course, finding the latter qualities in Congress is a feat of Diogenesian proportions.

|6.26.08 @ 1:17PM|#

Y'know, the military has rules concerning "unlawful orders", the basic idea being that just because someone in a position of power tells you to do something does not remove your personal responsibility. Obeying an unlawful order makes you a criminal.

It appears to me that granting this amnesty undermines the very concept of law and ushers in "whatever the government does or orders is legal". Is this really the path we want to follow?

Sam Grove|6.26.08 @ 1:44PM|#

Pelosi has grown more bold in her prevarication.

When I ran as a Libertarian in the special election for the seat Nancy won after Sala Burton became, ah, disabled by a stroke, you could barely tell that she was actually lying.

|6.26.08 @ 1:57PM|#

No, no it doesn't. I hope Feingold, Spector, or Dodd can muster up an effective filibuster.

It already easily passed a cloture vote in the Senate so passage is now a mere formality.

Elemenope|6.26.08 @ 2:01PM|#

It already easily passed a cloture vote in the Senate so passage is now a mere formality.

Oh cock!

Elemenope|6.26.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Well, I suppose we could hold out hope for sanity from the conference committee.

Or we could start plugging legislators until they cower in fear and surrender or are all dead.

ed|6.26.08 @ 2:13PM|#

Pelosi joins a long line of idiot Speakers

I think it's part of the job description. Click my name for a video diversion from all the gun chat. How many of the monkeys can you name?

|6.26.08 @ 2:20PM|#

Who holds the record for the fastest squandering of political capital? Bush or the Democratic Congress?

Elemenope|6.26.08 @ 2:34PM|#

Who holds the record for the fastest squandering of political capital? Bush or the Democratic Congress?

Bush. By a hair.

|6.26.08 @ 2:42PM|#

It's close, but I'd say it's the new Congress. Compared to 1994, this shift has proven to be pointless. What difference did it make? Even short term?

Hey, that's right, Bush is leaving office! How nice.

Elemenope,

I'd agree, but Bush really got a year of artificial boosting from 9/11. Congress became an object of scorn in much less time than that.

It's funny, but as irrelevant as we libertarians are, it seems like those politicians that have some libertarian principles get the most respect.

|6.26.08 @ 3:05PM|#

It's funny, but as irrelevant as we libertarians are, it seems like those politicians that have some libertarian principles get the most respect.

Yeah, I too noticed the immense amount of respect Paul was accorded during the primary debates.

And the immense amount of respect all the non-winning LP candidates get from the voters.

T|6.26.08 @ 3:14PM|#

And the immense amount of respect all the non-winning LP candidates get from the voters.

Exactly! That's why they lose! The public thinks they're too good for Congress.

OK, maybe not.

DrDGGJr|6.26.08 @ 3:17PM|#

The government could have stopped 9/11 from happening if they'd had the vital information they could have gleaned from these vital surveillance protocols.

Oh wait, actually they had all the information they needed, but they completely dropped the ball for any number of reasons.

I say we give those fine chaps all the power they need. They obviously know what they're doing.

|6.26.08 @ 3:59PM|#

prolefeed,

I stand by the statement. I said some libertarian principles. Really, I probably should've just said "principles". Someone in power who at least gives lip service to limits on his power is more comforting, even to Leviathanites, than the guy who promises everything he can't do and screws you in ways you hadn't heretofore anticipated.

|6.26.08 @ 8:41PM|#

Why does "bald faced lie" and "Nancy Pelosi" in the same sentence make me shudder?

|6.26.08 @ 10:30PM|#

Thanks to the efforts of Feingold and Dodd we now have two more weeks to deprogram the large number of elected officials suffering from stockholm syndrome. It may be too late this time but the internet is turning the traditional power structure on it's head through mass small dollar donations. The PAC created in response to the FISA compromise is just days old and already has amassed $324,790.62 from 5,646 donors. Considering this is a method of organizing in it's infancy whose effectiveness will only increase with practice gives me some hope. For those that want to donate to the PAC against retroactive immunity the link is below.

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa