Brad Ellsworth (D IN-08) (Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284) is apparently one of the House Democrats who supports the lack of accountability for Bush’s wiretapping schemes. Here is a pretty even-handed account of the differences between the Senate version and the House version. Democrats like Ellsworth want to abandon the House version in favor of the Senate version. Among other things, the Senate version gives telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for participating in the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless spying on U.S. citizens.
I bumped into “Rush Limblah’s” show at lunch today and listened for a few funnies. He didn’t disappoint with his hatful tone, but then brought up an intresting point.
Why have the democrats “caved” on this wiretapping deal? This was one of the banner examples of mis-use of power by the Bush administration, and all the more reason to elect Democrats to stop it. Why have they not done it?
Not just wiretapping, but it does seem that there was a lot expected of the new majority leadership of Congress, and not much has been delivered.
I think there is a contingent that is like a dog that’s been beat too much. They’re afraid of being painted as “weak on defense” if they take a stand on something like this. They learned nothing from Max Cleland’s 2002 defeat in Georgia: they’ll get attacked anyway. (Cleland was a Georgia Senator who lost in the 2002 campaign. Cleland voted for the Iraq War and had the distinction of losing 3 of his limbs (2 legs and 1 arm) during his service in Viet Nam. His challenger, Saxy Chambliss started airing ads that crudely morphed Cleland’s face into that of Hussein and bin Laden).
Plate o’ shrimp:
Minutes after I mentioned the 2002 Cleland attack ads, I came across a post at MyDD noting that John McCain is employing the guy responsible for those ads, Bo Harmon.
Because Democrats like big campaign contributions just as much as Republicans.
Democrats are the last line of defense for civil liberties in this country. I used to think Republicans at least believed in the 2nd amendment even if they didn’t like any of the others, but after reading the solicitor general’s brief to the Supreme Court I’ve changed my mind.
I was extremely pissed the last time the newly elected Indiana Democrats voted for FISA expansion and I said that I hoped they all lost the next election because of it. I stand by that. Perhaps it’s ignorant to hope that their loss will send the right kind of message to future candidates but if they won’t be ousted via primary then the only way to get rid of them is through the general.
Some issues are that important…
I held all of the DNC, DSCC, DCCC requests for money until now. Now they’re getting the marks-a-lot treatment. “I saw how you voted on warrantless wiretapping. No money for you this time.” Not that they’ll read it, but at least I’m not having to pay the postage.
Any word from Bayh’s office why he voted “nay” on the amendment to strike provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service poviders?
Civil liberties aren’t really the DLC way.
Jason aka Mayor McCheese–sorry couldn’t resist–was Rush actually against the Senate version of the bill?
You have a set of Dems who seem to be literally suffering from battered spouse syndrome (some, not all)… and then you have a set of Dems who “grew up” in that environment of “perptual Republican majority” and have learned to identify with the aggressor.
And thus we have the Blue Dogs, who have sadly mistaken 2006’s popular revolt at Bush’s insanities as a “mandate” for their psuedo-Republican tendencies… and now you get laws coming directly from Bush’s lips through Ellsworth’s votes.
How hard will it be to ready primary opposition for Ellsworth?… 2008 will be the universal wake-up call for the “Bush Dogs”… but can Indiana afford to wait that long to start the removal process?