Patterico's Pontifications

8/4/2007

Democrats Really Against What They Voted For

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:25 pm



This New York Times article portrays the Democrats as being against the new changes in the terrorist surveillance program.

But they’re in charge. They could have stopped it.

43 Responses to “Democrats Really Against What They Voted For”

  1. I love this line:

    The House Democratic leadership had severe reservations about the proposal and an overwhelming majority of Democrats opposed it.

    ‘Overwhelming majority?’

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure “does violence to the Constitution of the United States.”

    The Dems own the House. Why let this pass?

    If it had stalled, that would have left Democratic lawmakers, long anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing an August spent fending off charges from Republicans that they had left Americans exposed to threats.

    So they’ve been cornered into passing legislation that ‘violates the Constitution’ because they’re afraid of political fallout?

    Paul (771326)

  2. Then there’s this line:

    “Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering,” said Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Like the Dems never resort to fear-mongering and scare-mongering tactics to get themselves elected, let alone pass legislation.

    Paul (771326)

  3. “They could have stopped it.” It would require a spine.

    Al (b624ac)

  4. Or they want President Hillary to have the power to spy on whomever she wants.

    alphie (015011)

  5. I’m very disappointed that some Democrats decided to vote for the resolution. What combination of genuine support and politial cowardice entered into the decision I don’t know. That is, however, only part of the story.

    Under the unlamented Republican Congress just evicted, there was a “majority of the majority” policy. Legislation was not brought forward by the leadership unless a majority of Republicans supported the measure. Bills which were supported by Democrats and a sufficient number of breakaway Republicans to pass were left to wither and die.

    The Democrats didn’t like this system, which I understand to have been (another) radical departure from the traditional operation of the House—NAFTA passed the House in much the same way. It appears, from this vote, as if Pelosi has reverted to the status quo ante. Credit to the Democratic leadership for bringing democracy back to the House. Discredit to those Democrats who made a poor choice with it.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (a4566d)

  6. Sure Andrew, go ahead and try to convince us that Ms. Pelosi et al. are “bringing democracy back to the House.” Recent events clearly suggest otherwise.

    JVW (6a3590)

  7. Yeah, JVW, I forgot that voting is supposed to remain open for hours. The GOP tried some switching gimmick and it didn’t work. Boo effing hoo.

    Frankly, I think Pelosi should have taken all the GOP offices away and let their Congressmen work out of tents on the Mall. Tit for tat. But then, I’m not in Congress, and, yes, the Democrats deserve credit foer abandoning the majority of the majority system.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (a4566d)

  8. The GOP tried some switching gimmick and it didn’t work. Boo effing hoo.

    Yeah, that’s why they’ve struck a committee to investigate the incident. Great powers of deduction you’ve got there.

    Some gimmick, expecting the vote to be closed when the Democrat leader gavels it closed. What was that switched for, Andrew?

    Pablo (99243e)

  9. They were against it before they were for it.

    Or, they are purely political creatures with no spine.

    JD (e15e05)

  10. You’re not fooling anybody, alphie.

    Come out of the closet

    Paul (771326)

  11. Frankly, I think Pelosi should have taken all the GOP offices away and let their Congressmen work out of tents on the Mall. Tit for tat.

    Andrew, tell us when the Dems were forced out of their offices into tents on the Mall during the ‘Republican Dictatorship of the House’.

    Paul (771326)

  12. A pox on both their houses. The only thing a politician is good for is mockery. Laugh at them. Poke fun at them. Satirize them. They deserve nothing less.

    “Sooner or later all politicians die swallowing their own lies” –Claire Booth Luce

    Horatio (55069c)

  13. the dems have allowed themselves once again to get backed into a corner where they win if america loses. this is hardly a unique nor new position for the party and one wonders why they dont ever seem to learn.indeed, the 1960s and vietnam they backed george mc govern with disasterous results, in 1864 they backed george mc clellan running on an anti war platform promising to end the civil war and negotiate with the confederacy. earth to the democrat party, america wants to WIN its wars and punishes candidates as well as the party who advocate losing.

    james conrad (7cd809)

  14. It’s just politics–the Dems just want to retain their high approval numbers! They call it “the three percent solution.”

    And closing a House vote at the moment the scoreboard posts their win is democratic? Let’s apply that to baseball: Barry Bonds cracks one out…the winning run is on base…the opposing manager blasts the Democrat Buzzer as the ball sails towards the fence. Game over?

    Patricia (824fa1)

  15. Their fig leaf is the Senate bill is a six-month extension, though the same rules will be in force a year from today.

    FISA does some sort of review, but not on a case-by-case basis, only a more general look at the “process” being used.

    I gather all here believe the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    steve (a986be)

  16. Sorry steve, but the Founding Fathers were in a state of pre-9/11 thinking.

    AJB (ec28a6)

  17. When a bill passes with a large minority of one party and almost all of the other party voting for it, there is a term for that.

    Its called “bipartisan”.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  18. The democrats blew it. And of course the Republicans will call them weak on defense no matter what.
    Weak and stupid.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  19. Sorry steve, but the Founding Fathers were in a state of pre-9/11 thinking.

    They weren’t told about Michael Chertoff’s “gut feeling” beforehand, then.

    steve (a986be)

  20. Hooray for our chains! Who wants to be President of the War on Terror?

    Shimmy

    Shimmy (42c3e7)

  21. Steve – Make your case for the 4th amendment being applicable.

    AF – They will be portrayed as weak of defense because …. drumroll …. they are weak on defense.

    JD (8fd56a)

  22. Steve – Make your case for the 4th amendment being applicable.

    Is that an order?

    You make a case for the exception.

    steve (a986be)

  23. Your fellow travelers passed it. bring it up with Pelosi. If the Reps had passed it, y’all would have had coronaries, and the over wraught trashing the Constitution crap would be everywhere.

    JD (0c5b67)

  24. Steve, well there is the crossing the border exception for starters. Not to mention that the question of why a phone conversation placed upon the equipment of a third party and sent across continents is considered as within “persons, houses, papers, and effects” is a dubious one in the first place.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  25. This is what it’s REALLY all about Andrew J Lazarus:

    1. An un-named FISA court Judge in secret shut down the whole program. Leaving the Admin and NSA unable to conduct ANY surveillance of anyone at any time.

    2. The NIE came out estimating that Al Qaeda had reformed, and constituted a major threat to Americans at the August 2001 level.

    3. Al Qaeda has publicly threatened in videos released over the internet, “a major attack” against the US.

    Dems know they and they alone will bear the blame for handcuffing the Bush Admin ability to stop a terrorist attack. AQ is not going away. Just today Muslims were arrested in South Carolina with explosives (near a place where terrorists are held in military confinement).

    They voted for political survival. Dems would cease to exist if they chose privacy rights for terrorists over stopping Al Qaeda.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  26. So how free are the Defenders of America to do their jobs now?

    On a scale of 0-10?

    0 = Completely hamstrung by the Dirty F***ing Hippies who care about silly things like civil liberties.

    10 = Free as free range Chickenhawks!

    alphie (015011)

  27. Ha ha, alphie,

    I always find it interestig how ‘Staunch Republicans’ like yourself weren’t concerned about civil liberties when Bill Clinton was in office.

    Paul (771326)

  28. Their inability to exercise their own free will, alphie, is all on them.

    JD (b830c0)

  29. This is what it’s REALLY all about Andrew J Lazarus:

    How do you know what happened in secret?

    amarc (4eeb15)

  30. amarc, you are right, Jim’s information was reported in the Los Angeles Times, and should not be believed therefore.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  31. I gather all here believe the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against …”

    It came to the Blue Dog Democrats that phone calls from Mustaffa Jihadi in Tikrit to Mahmet Jihadi in Hamberg that got routed through “Joe’s Cheapest”telecommunication server in New Jersey didn’t have the same “right of the people”. Are muslims that want to kill us really our equivalent in the rights that you and I agreed to in the Constitution?

    I keep wondering why that concept is so hard for the rest of the Democrats. Especially when young Amish non-citizens are being stopped with explosives in their car…http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/0807/444994.html

    red (9e9332)

  32. red, the concept isn’t hard at all. That’s why the bill is going to pass – but the Democrats will give us a lot of pretend rhetoric that they are fighting hard to save us from the evil Bush / Cheney conspiracy to create a police state.

    And their nutbar fringe will become more paranoid and farther from reality.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  33. I almost laugh when the media now calls it the “terrorist surveillance program”. For over year they were calling it the “domestic wiretapping program”.

    Sad to say, a lot of Democrats, and as you say the nutbar fringe, probably think that Congress was voting on a different program entirely. Thus demonstrating the power of propaganda.

    red (9e9332)

  34. Dont kid yourself the demacrats want bigger goverment the demacrats want big brother

    krazy kagu (9e308b)

  35. So, why does the 4th Amendment apply to persons not US citizens, not in the US, part of forces with which the US is at War?

    Do you think we shouldn’t have engaged in ComInt (Communications Intelligence) against the Nazis back during WWII?

    LarryD (feb78b)

  36. Or they want President Hillary to have the power to spy on whomever she wants.

    Comment by alphie — 8/4/2007 @ 10:06 pm

    That is one of the most disturbing, yet frighteningly accurate things I’ve ever seen you post.

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  37. Why the hell is this always portrayed as spying on the American at the end of the phone line?

    If a modern day Al Capone called me, the Feds would listen in to the conversation without _any_ warrant involving _me_. I wouldn’t be notified. Ever. No one would ever say ‘boo’ over this, and my pleas about the 4th would be ridiculed mercilessly. The warrant is for the other end of the line – Al Capone. That would be ‘domestic surveillance’, and qualifies as warrant-less the way this thing is always described.

    When you move the target of the investigation offshore, the whole thing moves from ‘civilian law enforcement’ to ‘espionage.’ An area where the one piece that _would_ require a warrant domestically (the target’s end) is falling under a pretty normal piece of the war powers of a CnC. I don’t see how the point-of-interception is relevant unless it was physically inside my personal property. (Then they’re bugging _me_ without a warrant).

    Al (b624ac)

  38. Patterico, your headline is bogus (and unlike the typical journalist you don’t have the excuse that you don’t write your own headlines). In both chambers, a significant majority of Democrats voted against the measure. So how can it be “what [Democrats] voted for”? That said, you’re certainly correct that: “But they’re in charge. They could have stopped it.”

    Crust (399898)

  39. PS In the House, 41 Democrats voted in favor and in the Senate 16 Democrats voted in favor. Among Republicans, 2 Representatives voted Nay; no Republican Sentor voted Nay.

    Crust (399898)

  40. Crust – Who brought the bill to a vote? Who runs the House? Who runs the Senate?

    JD (06a9d8)

  41. Crust, the leadership in both bodies has a lot of control over when bills are considered and how they move. The bill would not have been voted upon so quickly and easily were it in fact a bill that the Democrat leadership did not want passed.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  42. Robin – Absolutely correct, though you do not give it justice. Leadership has absolute control over which bills are voted on, and when. Leadership either thought it would be soundly defeated, or wanted it passed.

    JD (06a9d8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0806 secs.