Breaking: Reid Pulls FISA Telecom Immunity Bill Off Senate Floor

Comments (41)

Gnopple wrote on December 17, 2007 8:08 PM:

Phew...

And Obama got his statement out in front of the news. Nice work, O.

bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 8:16 PM:

Go Dodd! I'm still not voting for you, but hey, you got kudos in my book!

Reid better learn his lesson before a movement starts to make him hand his post over to someone who knows how to use it. Damn, Senate Majority Leader Feingold has a nice ring to it =)

Feingold, he's so hot right now, Feingold.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on December 17, 2007 8:19 PM:

Way to go, Senator Dodd. You set the blogosphere on fire, even if the MSM basically indulged itself in one big, collective yawn. As for Biden, Clinton, and Obama, who all gave varying degrees of lip-service support to Dodd's filibuster, talk is cheap, so thanks for nothing. You three should have been there as a united front with Dodd, standing up for our rights.

Michael Caine wrote on December 17, 2007 8:30 PM:

Greg, your statement about the other Senatorial candidates is way off base. You have no idea whether they were working the phones of the other Senators while campaigning. You have no idea whether they would have flown in to help or not. In fact, you have a post prior that implied that Obama was possibly planning to do just that just prior to this post.

Madorsky wrote on December 17, 2007 8:45 PM:

I'm with bridoc--not a member in good standing of the Dodd Squad, but he deserves big props for shutting down the FISA renewal bill.

The telecom companies don't deserve immunity for helping the government run roughshod over the Constitution.

bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 8:45 PM:

I have to agree with Michael here; I'm sure no one can appreciate the kind of stress these candidates are under, and what considerations were involved in whether or not they were coming out there. It is also true that if Reid hadn't called it off, it was set to go on for basically another 24 hours, so I'm sure if it had come to that Obama would have shown up to support him later on. I was watching Dodd for quite a while and between Feingold and others he was holding it down pretty well. I really do think that if it had continued for a few more hours Obama would have been on a plane, and then the other senators would have rushed back on his heels.

Anyway, screw the political spin crap, what really matters is that it is off the table and we won for now! Considering it looked like damn near futile a few hours ago this is great!!

Feingold, so hot right now. Majority Leader Feingold.

DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 8:46 PM:

Again, Dodd deserves credit for taking a leadership role on this issue, but it really seems unfortunate to me that people are trying to make an issue over the precise manner in which various other Senators supported Dodd's efforts.

Michael Caine wrote on December 17, 2007 8:55 PM:

I agree completely with bridoc and DTM, Dodd was definitely THE man in regards to halting the fast tracking of Telecom Immunity. I am disappointed that Obama was not equally vocal in opposition. I want to believe that it was his campaign manager or some other staff member that held him back and let Dodd take the lead. I hope that is the case, but it still doesn't dampen the disappointment that he didn't tell the staffer to shove it since it was to important to risk.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 17, 2007 8:58 PM:

Reid: Oops! Dodd is still in town . . . Guess I can't Bush the hand job I promised him.

Dodd: Yep, I'z da shay-rif . . . I is also da edumication Presydent!

Reid: I hope to the deities that Obama doesn't develop a conscience about human rights because if he does the media might start paying attention to the hand jobs I'm giving to George . . .Perhaps I can cover up Dodd's attempt at a spine with the tired old 'serious consideration later' line. I can always call a special session once Dodd gets on an airplane.

Michael Lafferty wrote on December 17, 2007 9:16 PM:

The 'precise manner' in which they supported his efforts? Please. No matter which present Senator you support, you can walk away from this knowing that the others fumbled the ball. Don't forget, though, that your candidate did too!

I take issue with your implication that somehow the other three Senators on the campaign trail must all have been working their tails off to support this effort—as others have suggested, on the telephone perhaps—as if there was any public indication of this at all! Give it up. They were not present and visible when it mattered. The bigger issue is largely about the failure of the other candidates who are members of the Senate to clear their calendars and demonstrate unequivocally how important this issue was and is.

But, they chose not to, and that speaks volumes about their individual commitment to the cause versus their intent to claw their way over one another and into the White House. Clearly, this just wasn't really important to each individual, as say, the sudden, unexpected injury to a family member would have been. Some provisions of the Constitution are virtually on life support, but they have better things to do beyond pubic declarations of support. How about substantive demonstrations of support?

They all engaged this issue as if not to lose rather than to win, and did so individually and not as cooperating colleagues. That makes Senators Biden, Clinton and Obama all 'losers' with regard to this matter, in my estimation. Hard on them? Sure: I think we all should be.

A slightly humorous aside: the two senior Senators played it safe initially, saying nothing until the matter had apparently coincidently blown over late in the day. The Obama campaign made the rookie mistake: staking out an indefensible position just hours before it no longer really mattered. But, unlike the 'lucky' or 'skillful' opposition taken by the others, he is now stuck with the comment attributed to his staff.

I really don't know which is worse: refusing to make a public comment, or making one as lame as the Obama campaign offered. I do know that neither choice demonstrated measurable leadership. None at all.

While Senator Dodd is not has not been the candidate I choose to support, my respect for him grew immeasurably today. And I will demonstrate that by contributing to his campaign. My respect for the others? Not so much. Okay, not at all, really. And, they will get nothing.

I have spoken with several others today who expressed essentially the same thought. I think that those committed to the anointed front runners are not going to see such observations and opinions go away anytime soon.

DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 9:22 PM:

Michael Lafferty,

Not voting for cloture is supporting a filibuster. And I just don't see any real grounds for your proposed requirement that the Senators supporting a filibuster must physically be in Washington to not vote for cloture.

votenic wrote on December 17, 2007 9:42 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

destor23 wrote on December 17, 2007 9:59 PM:

Dodd did it and he did it alone. Clinton and Obama wouldn't leave Iowa to do their jobs. That's the bottom line.

JBB wrote on December 17, 2007 10:01 PM:

DTM,

Because a filibuster requires bodies to actually be there, and, you know, filibuster. Had the filibuster actually proceeded, it probably would have lasted some time. It's not as if Dodd can stand there and read the letters he was sent (and then onto the phonebook) for 3 days straight.

I've donated hundreds of dollars to Obama, and I was incredibly disappointed in his lack of more vocal support and leadership, and I have already expressed that to his campaign. He should have said, "If Majority Leader Reid does not table this bill, I will fly to Washington, D.C. immediately and assist Senator Dodd in its filibuster. I have high hopes that Senator Reid will recognize the severe and sincere problems in the bill as it is presently constituted and will remove it from consideration before a filibuster becomes necessary." A summary of *why* telecom immunity is bad would have been nice as a second paragraph, and may have garnered some press coverage of the subject, which has been completely absent with only Dodd pushing the issue.

zk0sm0 wrote on December 17, 2007 10:24 PM:

I am disappointed that Obama was not equally vocal in opposition.

get used to it. obama's nothing more than a bunch of happy talk and hot air.

and DTM:

your willingness to give your candidate credit for nothing is part and parcel of why i refuse to support your candidate: DOING the right thing for america is more important than just SAYING the right thing to get elected. not voting to break a filibuster does not count as support for the filibuster.

lambert strether wrote on December 17, 2007 10:25 PM:

What destor23 said:

Dodd did it and he did it alone. Clinton and Obama [and Biden] wouldn't leave Iowa to do their jobs. That's the bottom line.

(Well, almost alone. Big props to Feingold and Wyden for working to save the Constitution. Of course, they didn't have really important stuff to do, like campaigning in Iowa. So let's be reasonable here.)

I can't help thinking what a great picture it would have been if ALL the Democratic Senators running for President were UNITED in defending the Constitution -- something bigger and more important than themselves. Wouldn't it have been great if they were all there on the floor, showing SOLIDARITY? But n-o-o-o-o-o-o...

Sucks to be you, HRC, Obama, Joe. Your promises of "support" meant about as much as a Sternly Worded Letter.

(I exempt Edwards from this excoriation, since he's not a sitting Senator, and the Senatorial Oath of Office ("against all enemies") does not apply to him. In any case, if he alone did anything, without the others, the screams of "grandstanding" would have been destructive to the cause....

oleeb wrote on December 17, 2007 10:25 PM:

Kudos to Dodd!

But the fact is, Reid is going to bring it up again and it will pass. Why? Mostly because the cowardly Reid will bring up the wrong friggin bill! His spokesperson says Reid thinks the bill deserves a thorough debate, but the unspoken part of that thought is: "before we pass the bill in subservience to our Republican Lords and Masters."

One wonders if Reid and the other cowardly Democrats have any self respect left at all--just enough of one shred of decency left to, just once, stand up to the tyrant and tell him to go fuck himself? I guess we know the answer, particularly given the humiliating capitulation over the war spending last week. What an embarassment it is to be a grassroots Democrat when our "leaders" are such second rank wimps!

Michael Stevens wrote on December 17, 2007 10:26 PM:

Regarding Obama, Hillary, and Biden, the bottom line is that they were no-shows. They pledged support last month, but were a thousand miles away when it mattered. Had Reid not blinked, Clinton, Obama, and Hillary would have been too far away to be of any assistance.

It's true that this never came to a real filibuster. But that is ONLY because Chris Dodd's impeding actions forced Harry Reid to blink. Had Dodd not impeded this bill, it would almost certainly have passed by the end of this week. He was the firewall, and as sad a commentary it is on our Senatorial Democrats, he was the Only firewall.

Quite frankly, these suggestions that Hillary, Obama, or Biden were working behind the scenes to pressure Reid just don't wash. Does anyone honestly believe ANY of them would perform an instrumental role in stopping this bill and not claim credit for their actions? None of them were on the fence on this issue. When Presidential candidates keep their word and do something that is hugely supported by their base, they Don't keep it a secret.

In fact, neither Clinton nor Biden have made ANY official comment (that I'm aware of) on this topic for at least 3 days. And while Obama gave verbal support to Dodd this weekend, he never confirmed whether he would to return to DC if a filibuster became necessary. Even if he had decided to return, it's unlikely he could have been back in time to be of much help.

All that said, I agree that the largest take-away from this is that without Dodd's impeding actions, this bill would have gone through the Senate on greased rails

DTM wrote on December 17, 2007 10:57 PM:

Seriously, people: when was the last time a filibuster failed because the person grew too tired to continue, as opposed to the Senate voting for cloture?

Not voting for cloture is how you support a filibuster.

Michael Stevens wrote on December 18, 2007 12:00 AM:

DTM

When was the last time a filibuster succeeded when no one showed up to actually, you know, filibuster?

Hillary, Obama, and Biden didn't show. If not for Dodd, this awful, horrible, bill would have passed.

N.R. Murray wrote on December 18, 2007 12:04 AM:

Reid has got to go--together with Pelosi. They both are such useless bastards. The Dems need to get rid of them both, and soon. They are traitors and cowards whose careers should be ended.

cw wrote on December 18, 2007 12:35 AM:

Destor23 and vision of all candidates rushing back to DC to defend the Constitution, or at least suspend campaigning during the FISA fight. That would have garnered positive coverage for them and increased awareness of the telecom immunity. but no, our candidates are venial

JBB wrote on December 18, 2007 12:42 AM:

zk0sm0:

Thanks, but I've done my research regarding the candidates. I know the strengths and weaknesses of each, and I know the accomplishments of each. Your statement regarding Obama has so little basis in reality that it's entirely laughable. That doesn't change the fact that on this particular issue, he fell down on the job.

DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 6:04 AM:

Michael,

Right, you need someone to filibuster. But the very nature of a filibuster is that you only need one person to filibuster, and every Senator who wants to support that filibuster can support it by not voting for cloture.

So one more time, I think it is perfectly reasonable to give Dodd full credit for taking the leadership role on this issue. But to fault other Senators who supported Dodd's filibuster for not being physically present in Washington simply makes no substantive sense.

craig wrote on December 18, 2007 9:04 AM:

sure, the dem candidates MIGHT have been working behind the scenes to get the bill snuffed... they MIGHT have been supporting a filibuster by not being there for a cloture vote...

BUT HOW HARD IS IT to issue a statement from the campaign trail supporting dodd, denouncing spying on americans, giving immunity to those who broke the law, and giving the idiot in the white house what he wants just because he says so?

right. not hard. unless, of course, you don't THINK that way. kudos to obama for at least saying something.

DickTater wrote on December 18, 2007 9:12 AM:

One really has to wonder how long/deep are the hooks that the telcos have sunk into each candidate. This is the great One-Two punch of the Rightwing. They have policians who will scream God/Terrrrissst/Fags/War until they turn purple AND they have every swanky, scurvy, savvy LOBBYIST working over the public and the politicians mercilessly. There is always a huge MONEY angle, no matter how they also attack with Jesus-freaks and peeyerpants drills and gays-are-after-yer-kids alarms.

How much Telco money is in the pockets of all the candidates? The average politician? I knew Russ Feingold would be out in front on this topic, but stunned to see our (in the closet?) Senator Kohl was mum on whether we should let the phone companies copy their entire trafficlogs, hand them over to a criminal administration, and not face any penalties for being a communication company that betrays it's own rules, customers, and the law of the country.

I wish I could wave away the law of the land, or the printed contract I have with communication companies. See, I am still held to every letter of the contract...they can do whatever they want. Let me hear how this is suppose to work in a Free Market. Corporations write all the laws and I have to follow them. But THEY don't.

They just happen to be handing over EVERY scrap of communication of their law abiding, taxpaying, customers.

Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 9:27 AM:

Well gee, is it just me, or did Dodd and Reid simply put on a little C-Span play - a soap opera for stupid voters, a scene on C-Span to get campaign money?

Not that they haven't done that before - but it was obvious. Chris needed campaign funds and Reid decided to play along. But it won't matter - Dems are still going to give telecom companies the Immunity Bill.

Bush is right, Dems politizes EVERYTHING, because it was just a little show put on by Dems to raise cheap campaign money - that is all folks - and it was not funny, I think I hate both Chris Dodd and Harry Reid. Big *ssholes, the both of them.

Sagacity wrote on December 18, 2007 9:41 AM:

DTM, you're rationalizing. I understand you want to keep supporting your candidate, but they do deserve criticism for bailing on their commitments to support Dodd on the filibuster. They all said they would be there and not that long ago.

Ted Pax wrote on December 18, 2007 9:57 AM:

WTF is Reids problem?! He's getting to be another Lieberman...

anon wrote on December 18, 2007 10:27 AM:

Michael Lafferty wrote:

"They all engaged this issue as if not to lose rather than to win, and did so individually and not as cooperating colleagues."

That is absolutely correct! They play it all the time "not to lose". but it must be said they play not to lose for themselves: not the people because under the leadership of Democrats the people ALWAYS lose as has been apparent all year long as they have done nothing, been paralyzed with fear and cowardice and surrendered at the slightest glare of the Republicans who DO play to win. Congressional Democrats NEVER play to win except for themselves as individuals because what they really care about is themselves and their own asses. They care not at all about regular Americans, the Constitution our forefathers bled and died for and which many of our people hold to be a sacred trust between ourselves, our past and our future as a people. When you think about it, this sort of behavior is an excellent example why the reprehensible Joe Lieberman remains a Democrat: he's just more open about his defection to and cooperation with the forces of darkness, authoritarianism and lawlessness.

History will long remember that it was not the Republican criminals that sank the dream that was America--the last best hope of mankind: it was the cowardly, craven Democrats who had the power to save her and her people who broke the trust of the people and sold their heritage of freedom and justice for 20 pieces of silver that came in the form of large contributions from the telecom industry. For shame!

Don Quixote wrote on December 18, 2007 10:37 AM:

Hey bridoc and others, Dodd is a long shot but is he not the sort of president that we want? Time to start supporting Dodd! Reid has become more of a disappointment the longer he has been majority leader, he was more effective as the minority leader.

roystgnr wrote on December 18, 2007 10:46 AM:

But the very nature of a filibuster is that you only need one person to filibuster, and every Senator who wants to support that filibuster can support it by not voting for cloture.

Well, you only need one person as long as he can keep it up. Clearly Biden, Clinton, and Obama have as much confidence in Dodd as I do, if they're willing to place the sole responsibility for protecting the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law on his shoulders. If they depend on his leadership so much, perhaps they should give him the same level of support in a job whose very nature really does require only one person: President of the United States.

thomas wrote on December 18, 2007 11:11 AM:

did Reid just put off the bill to give him time to shake-down the telecoms for more $$?
My great fear is that the DLC types just see this as another opportunity to get more $$ in their coffers.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 18, 2007 11:20 AM:

DTM - Not voting for cloture is supporting a filibuster. And I just don't see any real grounds for your proposed requirement that the Senators supporting a filibuster must physically be in Washington to not vote for cloture. votenic wrote on December 17, 2007 9:42

JBB - [A] filibuster requires bodies to actually be there, and, you know, filibuster. Had the filibuster actually proceeded, it probably would have lasted some time. It's not as if Dodd can stand there and read the letters he was sent (and then onto the phonebook) for 3 days straight.

I am an entheusiastic supporter of Sen Obama, but I think that JBB has the better side of this argument. Not voting for cloture is indeed a good thing, but not quite as good as asking questions and other diversionary measures to allow the one doing the yeoman's work of the filibuster to eat a quick morsel, or suchlike. Sen Dodd covered himself in glory here; Clinton, Obama and Biden come off looking rather shabby in comparison. Not awful, mind you; not as bad as folks like McConnell of KY or Bond of MO, but not nearly as impressive as Dodd.

brendancalling wrote on December 18, 2007 11:52 AM:

Michael Caine:
"You have no idea whether they would have flown in to help or not"

Yeah, well they didn't. So i think we have the answer to THAT one. they spent their time campaigning in Iowa at Dodd's expense, while Dodd stood up for rule of law.
Who's the real leader?

lambert strether wrote on December 18, 2007 11:59 AM:

Michael Caine:
"You have no idea whether they would have flown in to help or not"

Not to pile on or anything, but this is just so, so great.

Turns out "support" means the same thing as "might support at some hypothetical future date" with HRC and Obama.

Good to know.

Of course, "top candidates" do have more important things to do than fly in to support Constitutional government. I really feel for them, and I understand completely.

Underlining that "understand completely."

whidbeygrl wrote on December 18, 2007 12:36 PM:

Dick Tater asks.....
How much Telco money is in the pockets of all the candidates?
www.opensecrets.org lets you look up candidate funding in an easily searched database.
My quick look up shows Telephone Utilities in the 2008 race are supporting Dems and Repubs about equally.
Most of Dodd's money is from the Financial/
Insurance/Real Estate sector.

and yeah, I have a suspicious mind, as does **Anonymous*** about the whole spectacle on C-span being a ploy to boost Dodd's image. Lots of ways to look at it.

Clay wrote on December 18, 2007 12:38 PM:

For all of you who only understand filibuster from some old Jimmy Stewart movie, here's how it works. And Jimmy would not have been able to filibuster if the movie had been true to life. Any Senator may indicate that s/he will filibuster a bill. They are not required to talk all night--it's assumed that they and their friends could tie up the Senate and no one wants to be bothered to work overtime. So, a cloture vote is scheduled. It requires 60 votes to pass.

The folks posting here are both right and wrong. Not voting in favor of cloture is the same as voting in favor of the filibuster. So, in that way, Clinton, Obama and Biden did support the filibuster. However, LEADERSHIP on the issue is another thing and would have involved speaking out, traveling to Washington, doing SOMETHING other than blah, blah, blah in Iowa.

Did Reid pull the bill because a cloture motion would have failed? He has to pass something by January or the temporary FISA fix will expire and the Republicans will get to say that he's weak. We all know how strong Harry is. But, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, the President has said that Americans could die if this bill isn't passed and the President has also said that he will veto any bill without immunity for the telecoms. So, the President is obviously saying that he would prefer for Americans to die than to upset the phone companies.

Goodness, with points like that, knowing the popularity of the phone companies, what the h$ck is Harry Reid doing?

urbino wrote on December 18, 2007 2:54 PM:

Regardless of the presidential politics of this thing, my question is: what does rescheduling the vote for January mean for the bill's prospects?

My guess is that Reid figures that once the primaries have begun, the candidate senators will be waaaay too busy to pay any attention to this bill, and everybody else will be waaaay too distracted by the primaries to notice that he's pushing it through.

I've donated to Dodd twice over this bill, but I don't think Reid pulled the bill for now because of Dodd's filibuster threat. I think he pulled it because he thinks he can pass it easier and quieter in January.

Dodd is longshot for president, but he'd make one HELL of a good Senate Majority Leader.

votenic wrote on December 18, 2007 4:32 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

john mccutchen wrote on December 18, 2007 8:39 PM:

Thank you Senator Dodd!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)