Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Required Reading: Hitchens on ... | Meanwhile in a Sane Country »

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Expanding Bush’s Spying Powers? Not Washington State’s Democrats.

posted by on August 7 at 14:21 PM

FYI (hadn’t seen this round-up anywhere).

On the wiretapping bill:

Voting Nay: Cantwell, Inslee, McDermott, Baird, Smith, Dicks, Larsen; also: Clinton and Obama

Voting Yea: Reichert, McMorris-Rogers, Hastings

Not voting: Murray.

Murray’s office tells us she was in the state for a rare family occasion. They say she would have voted ‘Nay,’ and pointed out that the vote was so lopsided in favor (60-18) that her absence wasn’t significant.

RSS icon Comments

1

Did they also happen to mention why the Dems seem hellbent on outraging and infuriating the people who actually, you know, vote for them?

Or why they constantly collude with Bush and the Republicans to rape the Constitution and everything this country hypocritically claims to stand for?

Just askiní. Heckuva job, Dems. No wonder your approval ratings are in the toilet.

Posted by Original Andrew | August 7, 2007 2:26 PM
2

Sigh. I called Cantwell and asked why the hell she didn't filibuster. Now that I see the vote total, I have my answer.

Posted by Gitai | August 7, 2007 2:59 PM
3

You are all, of course, aware that there is a nasty nasty rumor going round about Senator Clinton.

There has been "a rumor that Senator Clinton voted for this outrageous FISA bill on Friday evening, and switched her vote to "no" only once it was evident the bill still had 60 votes without her."

--via TheCapitolist

Makes one think....

Posted by dkstar | August 7, 2007 3:02 PM
4

I think what really got so many Dem votes was the threat of having their summer vacations postponed.

I hate the people who run our government.

Posted by monkey | August 7, 2007 3:04 PM
5

Reichert sure hates his district's values, doesn't he?

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 7, 2007 4:49 PM
6

Yeah, Democrats are weak pushovers and have been since Clinton- in fact, I'd probably argue that their long march into irrelevance began earlier, in the Reagan years. They don't know how to disengage from the right/center-right political trap they've found themselves sinking into over the last 3 decades. Even if they win the presidency, barring some stealth progressive winning, they'll reign over a conservative political climate. At some point they really need to sit down and define themselves as something more than opponents of Republicans and strategize accordingly. Otherwise, fuck them, they're the Whigs.

Posted by Jay | August 7, 2007 5:01 PM
7

Jay @ 6,

You're totally right and it's a huge problem. In Europe or Canada, our Dems would be a center-right party, so we're either dealing with the psycho, far-right Repubs or the weak, ineffective, center-right Dems.

We need to figure out how to move the political center back towards, well, the center.

Posted by Original Andrew | August 7, 2007 5:19 PM
8

@6 - it's not so much that the Democrats are pushovers as it is that they're a bigger tent. It's pretty clear that the Republicans, who have pretty much purged themselves all of their liberal constituencies, are far, far more ideologically in step with each other these days than the Democrats, who still have some more conservative elements in their base that need to be placated.

Posted by tsm | August 7, 2007 6:28 PM
9

Memo to the Democrats: When this sort of bullshit passes, you stand up, you walk out of the chamber, and refuse to come back. You shut down the motherfucking government until habeas corpus is restored, torture is completely and clearly banned, and civil liberties are restored. and you dont come back inside until it happens--until the Constitution and its powers (and limits on powers) have been restored. If it doesnt happen expeditiously, you march back inside and draft Articles of Impeachment.

Posted by Andy Niable | August 7, 2007 7:23 PM
10

Well kids, I was about to vent on this but Original Andrew and Andy said it so much better than I would have.

Posted by Dianna | August 7, 2007 8:19 PM
11

When Dan Savage wrote this in Oct. 2002 he was saying that the death of children in the Iraq war was acceptable.

\"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people.\\\"

So why don\\\'t we apportion Dan Savage his fair share of the carnage in Iraq? Let\\\'s arbitrarily assign him responsibility for the death of, say, an eight year old Iraqi girl. That sounds about right doesn\\\'t it? That still leaves 649,999 dead Iraqis to be apportioned out to Bush and the neo-cons and other war supporters.

Posted by Andrew | August 8, 2007 12:18 AM
12

Can somebody tell me why on earth any Democrat supported this bill? I listened to NPR, and I still don't get it. I'm shocked to find that Amy Klobuchar, who just fucking got elected and doesn't have to kiss anyone's ass, voted for it. WTF?

Posted by Big Sven | August 8, 2007 1:12 AM
13

fosn rksp kxqsdzopc sjkoive hlge tqkuanep sphze

Posted by jskpu zyohxs | August 21, 2007 3:21 AM
14

fztyk qektiolp mlry jfdhugs kshytg xcqimlu gezbao http://www.jfxiuglwr.jrvy.com

Posted by szlrmo aqcywvk | August 21, 2007 3:22 AM
15

fztyk qektiolp mlry jfdhugs kshytg xcqimlu gezbao http://www.jfxiuglwr.jrvy.com

Posted by szlrmo aqcywvk | August 21, 2007 3:23 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).