Progressives Team Up With Conservatives To Scuttle Pelosi's Orwellian Domestic Spying Bill

Progressives in Congress worked with the GOP Tuesday to torpedo an authoritarian domestic spying bill-- already passed by the Senate-- that Pelosi, Hoyer and Schiff were trying to push through the House. By late that night, Pelosi and her team read the tea leaves and pulled their own bill that was meant to reauthorize key parts of FISA. Trump, for his reasons-- remember he had signed the FISA legislation into law last year-- had threatened to veto the bill hours before Pelosi cancelled the vote on it.

As Ryan Grim pointed out, "earlier this month, the Republican-led Senate failed to pass a measure that would limit the FBI’s ability to access web-browsing history and other online activity without a warrant by a single vote... Civil libertarians, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) pushed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow an up-or-down vote on that amendment, then send it back to the Senate, where it could pass with all senators voting. Pelosi instead told Lofgren to negotiate with House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) the New York Times reported, and Schiff watered down the legislation. The result drew criticism from the left and right-- and Trump’s attention to the fight. Had Pelosi agreed to a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate amendment, it likely would have passed easily, and reauthorization of the broad surveillance authorities, along with some real reforms, would be on their way to becoming law."

The politics of surveillance, even in normal times, scramble the typical partisan tendencies, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Pelosi, and Schiff often aligning on questions about the breadth and depth of state power to surveil and track Americans. Opposing those congressional leaders is the civil liberties community, which includes both progressives and conservatives with libertarian leanings, but which rarely can muster a majority in Congress for its defense of the Bill of Rights.

The civil liberties argument has gained new traction in recent months, with Trump’s outrage over the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court’s handling of surveillance of his campaign, particularly the deeply flawed application for a warrant to surveil former adviser Carter Page. Although it was initially designed to review intelligence surveillance applications for suspected agents of a foreign power, after 9/11 the secretive FISA court signed off on expansive interpretations of surveillance law. Now, as Trump feels victimized by it, he and his allies have found religion on the question.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), a famously eccentric conservative in the House, remarked at a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday morning on the oddity of House Democrats fighting to give Trump surveillance powers he wasn’t asking for, despite his clear determination to use law enforcement for his own political ends.

“It sure seems strange to me. For Democrats to vote for this reauthorization, even with these amendments, would have to be sort of saying, we have so much trust in Donald Trump and the people he’s appointed that they would never lie to a FISA court. They would never just go after their enemies. We feel like he can be trusted and so can all the people he’s appointed,” he said. “We know he’s cleaned out some folks at the Justice Department, FBI, I mean, think about it.”

The unlikely coalition of Trump and the civil libertarians was enough to stall the legal reauthorization of the FBI’s “call detail records” program, an amended version of the Patriot Act that allowed federal law enforcement to collect phone records. The authority lapsed in March after McConnell was unable to force through an unamended reauthorization.

Earlier this month, the Senate reauthorized those programs with additional restrictions, but an amendment that would limit the government’s ability to collect internet browsing history without a warrant fell one vote short of the 60 votes it needed to pass.

Pelosi then instructed Schiff to come up with a compromise version with Lofgren, rather than allow an up-or-down vote on the Senate language. The result of those negotiations was an amendment, introduced by Lofgren and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) that reintroduced the restriction on collecting browsing history, but applies it only to U.S. persons.

However, Lofgren’s and Davidson’s amendment leaves up to interpretation what federal agents should do when they don’t know ahead of time whether U.S. persons’ information would be swept up in information requests-- giving the secretive FISA court room to allow bulk collection and task the FBI with purging U.S. person information afterward. The agreement broke down when Schiff and Lofgren offered different interpretations of their measure.

“If the government wants to use a dragnet and order a service provider to produce a list of everyone who has visited a particular website, watched a particular YouTube video, or made a particular search query, it cannot seek that order unless it can guarantee that the business records returned will contain no U.S. person IP addresses, or other U.S. person identifiers,” Lofgren said at a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday morning. That interpretation was enough to win the backing of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

In a statement, Schiff said that the amendment prohibited orders that “to seek to obtain” U.S. persons’ browsing information, leaving open the possibility that the FBI could seek to collect visitor logs from a website that contained Americans, as long as that was not their primary purpose.

Statements like that, noted Charlie Savage in The Times, can be used by judges to determine legislative intent and confounded what had appeared to be a settled issue.

That led to pushback from both the left and right, and the renewed attention not only risked reforms that had been won in the Senate and failed to win support for the amendment Schiff advocated for, but it also drew a veto threat from Trump. Wyden, who co-sponsored the failed amendment in the Senate, withdrew his support, saying in a statement that it “flatly contradicted the intent” of his amendment in the Senate, and urged the House to consider his version.

...David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, which lobbied against the legislation, said that Pelosi and Schiff’s apparent own goal came from too close of an alliance with the national security establishment, which, he argued, “has led them to line up against reforms that could have passed, and in support of a bill that harms Americans, might not pass, and would likely be vetoed.”

...The opposition of a vast majority of Republicans gifted the CPC a fresh opportunity to flex its muscles in the House, after a disappointing effort to influence coronavirus relief packages. Trump’s turn against surveillance authorities has produced enough Republican opposition that a concerted effort by progressives could block passage. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., a CPC co-chair, told The Intercept that the caucus was urging its 92 members to vote no. “We have grave concerns that this legislation does not protect people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, especially their online activity including web browsing and internet searches,” said Pocan and fellow co-chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., in a statement later on Wednesday afternoon. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection.”

...The opposition of a vast majority of Republicans gifted the Congressional Progressive Caucus a fresh opportunity to flex its muscles in the House, after a disappointing effort to influence coronavirus relief packages. Trump’s turn against surveillance authorities has produced enough Republican opposition that a concerted effort by progressives could block passage.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) a CPC co-chair, told The Intercept that the caucus was urging its 92 members to vote no.

“We have grave concerns that this legislation does not protect people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, especially their online activity including web browsing and internet searches,” said Pocan and fellow co-chair Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) in a statement later on Wednesday afternoon. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection.”

For now, the Patriot Act provisions remain dead-- as do the reforms included in the underlying bill (some of which extend beyond the Patriot Act). All because Pelosi and Schiff insist on letting the FBI access browser history without a warrant, not what people who don't watch carefully would ever expect from either Pelosi or Schiff.

Ryan Cooper asked a salient question that Democrats should be asking themselves: If Trump is a budding autocrat-- and we all know he is-- shouldn't Democrats limit his surveillance powers?. "Why in God's name," he asked, "did Democrats even consider giving President Donald Trump-- the man they recently impeached for abuse of power-- more unaccountable surveillance powers? Over his own objection, no less?"

Schiff himself was the leader of the impeachment prosecution of Trump just a few months ago. In a long speech before the Senate, Schiff argued that the Founding Fathers had put impeachment into the Constitution specifically to deal with someone like Trump: "a man who would subvert the interest of the nation to pursue his own interests. For a man who would seek to perpetuate himself in office by inviting foreign interference and cheating an election." Even on the extremely narrow grounds chosen by House Democrats (which left out his most egregious looting of public coffers) Trump undoubtedly deserved to be removed from office.

But Schiff doesn't seem to actually believe his case against Trump. There is no possible justification for granting a corrupt, election-cheating president-- one who appointed a dishonest stooge as the nation's chief law enforcement officer-- the power to root through anyone's browser history without a warrant. Indeed, all the enormous powers of the surveillance state (which accomplish little or nothing of value) are exceptionally dangerous in the hands of Trump, and Democrats should be working frantically to scale them back. So far it appears we have gotten lucky in that Trump doesn't appear to grasp what these powers are for or how he might exploit them fully, but that situation is not guaranteed to hold.

Indeed, Trump's own objections remove the only possible political justification for passing this bill-- that Republicans would call Democrats soft on terrorism. They could shelve the bill, point to Trump, and shrug. Not their fault Trump didn't want these powers extended.

But in reality, Democrats like Schiff have completely swallowed the worldview of the national security establishment. Dragnet surveillance, like semi-randomly assassinating people up to and including American citizens, are some of the Important Tools that Keep Us Safe. The danger of a corrupt imbecile in the White House abusing those powers does not fit into this worldview, so it is ignored. If there is a choice between bowing before American imperial power and recognizing the danger of that power, they will choose the former, even when a game show demagogue is in the White House.

UPDATE From San Francisco: 

I just heard from Shahid Buttar, the progressive attorney and community organizer who is challenging Pelosi in November (having-- like her-- won the jungle primary in March). "It's entirely unacceptable—- and equally unsurprising—- that Nancy Pelosi has yet again used her formidable influence on Capitol Hill to enable authoritarian surveillance powers," he told us. "The reason I felt forced to run to replace Pelosi was her longstanding opposition to surveillance reforms on which I've worked for over a decade. What's new this year is the presence of a right-wing aspiring tyrant in the White House, and a bipartisan block of policymakers willing to do the right thing and challenge the institutional establishment that has rammed these powers through Congress on nearly a dozen occasions over the past decade without ever allowing a transparent debate. It is shameful that Pelosi supported the Republican position on FISA reauthorization. Pelosi's support for GOP positions also represents a profound threat to our democracy. Under the administration of a criminal president with no respect for the rule of law, we need resistance for real in Congress, not partisan posturing paving the road to fascism."

Domestic Spying Controversy Comes To New Jersey

Thursday, Congressman Ted Lieu posed an interesting question on Twitter: "What happens if the Patriot Act expires?" He wasn't trying to panic anyone; he was trying to reassure everyone: "Americans start getting our Fourth Amendment rights back." 

Utah Tea Party radical Mike Lee is leading the fight in the Senate to reform that horribly flawed legislation so hated by Americans of all political flavors. The law expires on Memorial Day, which will force the NSA-- if they follow the law (a ridiculous assumption)-- to stop its unconstitutional bulk spying on American citizens, which both Lee and Lieu would like to see happen. 

Jerry Nadler, (D-NY), Congress' most knowledgable constitutional law expert, said he's happy to see the Patriot Act sunset this weekend, even though he's a cosponsor of the bill to replace it, the USA Freedom Act. "It’s fine with me. I’d rather they pass the USA Freedom Act, but I can live with sunsetting." Sunsetting is also the option libertarian Republicans are backing, especially Justin Amash (R-MI), who is the most active force in the House among Republicans against renewal.

National security state backers in both parties-- and that includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who walked away with a handsome $185,550 in legalistic bribes from the military-industrial complex last year alone-- are running around with their hair on fire shrieking about ISIS taking over South Carolina. The Senate doesn't like working on Fridays, let alone on weekends, but McConnell is forcing the chamber to stay in session today to vote on the USA Freedom Act, which already passed the House 338-88, and on a two-month extension to the Patriot Act. Most House progressives voted NO May 13, and they were joined by 47 Republicans who prefer to shut the whole domestic spying operation down. 

Among the progressives who voted against it were Alan Grayson (D-FL), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA). Most of the incumbents Blue America is targeting for defeat in 2016 voted for the bill, including reactionary New Dem Patrick Murphy (FL), corrupt transactional machine candidate Donald Norcross (NJ), the heinous Steve Israel (NY) and reactionary Blue Dog Dan Lipinski (IL), 4 shameless pawns of the military-industrial complex lobbyists, as well as Republican warmongers like Dave Reichert (R-WA), Peter King (R-NY), DCCC-protected Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Fred Upton (R-MI), John Kline (MN), and the 3 most vulnerable California Republicans, Steve Knight, Jeff Denham and David Valadao.

This week, a desperate Chris Christie, who is finding himself being taken less and less seriously by Republican primary voters, stepped right in the mess, blurting out, "You can't enjoy your civil liberties if you're in a coffin," infuriating Senator Lee, who went on CNN to say Christie "should be ashamed of himself" and to accuse him of "political pornography." Lee said, "That's absolutely ridiculous. It's absurd. And if Mr. Christie wants to play a part in the national discussion regarding privacy and security, he should choose his words more carefully.... I would ask Mr. Christie, how many lives has it saved? I would ask Mr. Christie, how many acts of terrorism have been thwarted simply because the NSA is collecting telephone data on what your grandmother calls-- on calls that she makes or calls that she receives?"

The spat between Utah’s junior senator and Christie, a 2016 presidential hopeful, is the latest example of Republican-on-Republican feuding over the future of the controversial law which was originally passed in the wake of 9/11.

On Wednesday another 2016 Republican contender, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), spent 10½ hours on the Senate floor voicing his opposition to bulk surveillance of American citizens’ so-called metadata.

Lee has not drawn a hard line against all data collection and instead has backed an alternative called the USA Freedom Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives last week with a large bipartisan majority. The USA Freedom Act aims to limit bulk collection of metadata about American citizens, as well as mandate more transparency about court decisions relating to surveillance.

Paul has said that he does not believe the USA Freedom Act goes far enough, while Lee has joined Democratic colleagues like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia in supporting it.

“I’m not saying that we ought to let [the PATRIOT Act] expire,” Lee told CNN. “I’m saying that there’s a middle ground and the USA Freedom Act accomplishes that.”

“Instead of collecting everyone’s phone records simply because they exist, the NSA ought to be focused on collecting those phone records that are connected in some way with a phone number that’s involved in a terrorism ring.”

Barbara Lee, the only Member of Congress at the time to possess the foresight and moral courage to have voted against Bush's illegal attack on Afghanistan, sees it differently from Lee. She's aware that the USA Freedom Act is better than the Patriot Act but she voted against it: "The USA Freedom Act that passed last week takes some good steps toward reigning in domestic spying, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough in protecting Americans’ civil liberties. I’m committed to fighting for stronger protections. That's why I’m supporting the Surveillance State Repeal Act, which would do exactly what it says-- repeal the Patriot Act." 

And she's far from alone in those sentiments. Blue America has endorsed Alex Law for the South Jersey seat occupied by pro-war ConservaDem Donald Norcross. This morning, Law told us that he's not buying into the hype either.

"As progressives we must oppose this extension. I am a millennial, and my generation has grown up in a post-911 world where it seems almost commonplace that the government has the authority to monitor us. We have grown to have less expectations of privacy, and, by extension, liberty. All of this has been sold to us as the cost of security, but that narrative is flawed and manipulative. There has to be a way for the strongest, wealthiest, most creative nation in the world to secure ourselves without sacrificing the liberties that make America so great.

It is no surprise to me that my primary opponent, Donald Norcross, one of the more conservative Dems in the House, voted for the extension of NSA power. However, other members of the New Jersey delegation that I am fighting to join like Frank Pallone and Bonnie Watson Coleman voted against the Freedom Act. They are two people I admire and respect as examples of true progressive leaders. Our founders envisioned the debate we are currently having as a threat to our future. Benjamin Franklin commented on it saying, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." In this new age of technology, we would be wise to heed that advice.

Blue America candidates like Alex Law favor peace over war. If you'd like to help elect them to Congress... there's an ActBlue page just for that. There is no contribution too small.




UPDATE: House Domestic Spying Extension Fails In Senate

Just after midnight-- and on a Friday; the Senate almost never votes on Fridays, like maybe once a year-- the Senate refused to shut down the deficit filibuster on a motion to proceed to debate the USA Freedom Act, which would have allowed for some of the unconstitutional activities that make up the NSA's domestic spying regime. The motion needed 60 votes (3/5) and it wound up at 57-42. A dozen Republicans, including extremists likeTed Cruz (TX), Jim Lankford (OK), Cory Gardner (CO), Mike Lee (UT), and Dan Sullivan (AK) voted with the Democrats. It had passed the House 338-88 with a very different political dynamic.

Military Industrial Complex shill Dianne Feinstein was a top shill for the bill: "I've taken a good look at this. For those who want reform and want to prevent the government from holding the data, the Freedom Act is the only way to do it. The House has passed it, the president wants it. All of the intelligence personnel have agreed to it, and I think not to pass that bill is really to throw the whole program, that whole section 215 as well as the whole business records, the lone wolf, the roving wiretaps into serious legal jeopardy." Enough senators saw through her bullshit to allow the USA Freedom Act to die. "This is a debate," explained Rand Paul, "about whether or not a warrant with a single name of a single company can be used to collect all the records, all of the phone records of all of the people in our country with a single warrant. Our forefathers would be aghast." The PATRIOT Act expires June 1. McConnell says the Senate will return from it's Memorial Day break a day early to try to pass a bill to allow the NSA to continue its unconstitutional domestic spying agenda. He tried some scare tactics: "This is a high threat period and we know what's going on overseas. We know what's been tried here at home. My colleagues-- do we really want this law to expire? We got a week to discuss it. We'll have one day to do it."

The Patriot Act-- Back For Another Go-Round

The intrinsically embarrassing nature of the Patriot Act came front and center again with the appearance on the national scene of NSA whistleblower Ed Snowden. This is a mature democracy? And for Obama... how did he shift from a senator so eloquently critical of unconstitutional surveillance practices to a chief proponent of expanding them? In his book The Edward Snowden Affair, Michael Gurnow looked at how Obama was forced to make a fuss about the Patriot Act once Russia granted Snowden political asylum.

The first is "reforms to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act" even though "[I]t does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant. But given the scale of this program, I understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse." Obama stated adjustments will be made to these two laws to ensure "greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints on the use of this authority."

He then proposed FISC oversight in the form of a legal representative being present to review request orders, because the court currently "only hears one side of the story, may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty." Obama, a Harvard lawyer, acknowledged a kangaroo court was in effect because no defense attorney was present to represent those whom the U.S. government was attempting to target.

...The impact of the international disclosures-- especially those pertaining to China, Germany and the EU-- was obvious during the conference. The president very gingerly acknowledged, "[ ... ] how these [surveillance] issues are viewed overseas [is important] because American leadership around the world depends upon the example of American democracy and American openness, because what makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation; it’s the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process." He went on to state, "[ ... ] to others around the world, I want to make clear once again that America is not interested in spying on ordinary people. "

By now you have surely heard of a new Senator from Arkansas by the name of Tom Cotton. He was a 37-year-old congressman who won the Senate seat formerly held by conservative Democrat Mark Pryor in 2014. Cotton took the Senate by storm penning one of the most embarrassing documents ever written by a sitting Senator and then getting the entire GOP Senate caucus to co-sign it-- the infamous Iran Letter.

Undaunted by this humiliation, the Republican Party has decided that Cotton is the man to lead them into the future on national security issues. And unfortunately, he's decided that his next mission will be to lead the Republican charge to extend certain provisions of the Patriot Act which are set to expire this June. They've even added some new powers for the NSA, just to make things interesting.

There was a lot of talk at one time about a new coalition of civil libertarian Republicans and civil libertarian Democrats coming together to reform these programs now that the nation is aware of what they're actually doing. Sadly, the number of civil libertarians in the Republican Party can fit in a small Smart Car and the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party are not a majority. And with über-hawk Tom Cotton waving the “national security” banner we can be sure the Republicans are intent upon squelching any thoughts of reform. This is why it's so important for Democrats to elect more real progressive civil libertarians to Congress. We cannot count on this tiny faction of libertarian Republicans, led by their hypocritical grandstanding leader Rand Paul, to ever provide the numbers required to roll back the surveillance state. Hawkish national security and authoritarian police policies are in the modern GOP's DNA.

This is going to require a majority progressive Democratic Party led by people like Congresswoman Donna Edwards, who is now running for the Maryland Senate seat currently held by retiring Senator Barbara Mikulski. Edwards has been consistent on these issues throughout her career in congress. For instance, in 2014 she voted against the USA Freedom Act, originally conceived as a reform measure, but which was later gutted by the Republicans in committee. She issued this statement at the time:

“After much deliberation I opposed the USA Freedom Act because I continue to believe it doesn’t strike the necessary balance between protecting our national security and protecting our 4th Amendment rights. Without question, national security issues are critically important, and I applaud all those who work at the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, and others for their dedication to duty and professionalism. We must provide them with the means to gather the information necessary to keep America safe. However, we cannot allow the pursuit of that goal to infringe on the civil liberties that we, as Americans, hold sacred and fought so hard to defend.”

She will bring that same principled clarity to the Senate.

Last week the House passed yet another Republican surveillance bill. Blue America's slate of progressive civil libertarians voted against, while all the usual suspects supported it.

Blue America primary candidate Alex Law, who is challenging New Jersey Congressman Donald Norcross, gave this statement:

Yet again we have a clear difference between myself and my opponent in the Democratic primary in NJ-01. Today, Donald Norcross voted in support of the Protecting Cyber Networks Act, a bill that is a surveillance bill disguising itself as a cyber-security bill. This bill gives companies a significant expansion in their ability to monitor customers' online activities. It allows them to share vaguely defined 'cyber threat indicators,' which then automatically go to the NSA. The NSA is then authorized broad law enforcement rights that could stretch beyond cyber-security. This chain of events is a slippery slope. I totally disagree with the structure of this bill. We must stand up for individual privacy. What we have in this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and if I were in Congress, I would have voted against it like other progressives such as Alan Grayson and Judy Chu.

The provisions of the Patriot Act which are set to expire in June should not be extended. We don't know for sure if they will. The USA Freedom Act ultimately died in the Senate when the Democrats who were in the majority at the time added a few safeguards and then couldn't overcome a filibuster. (Yes, the GOP ultimately filibustered the bill for being too weak ...) The Republicans are now in charge and Tom Cotton is working overtime to give the NSA every last item on their wish list. Perhaps we'll get lucky and gridlock will work in favor of freedom once again. But I wouldn't count on it.

There are simply not enough principled, progressive civil libertarians in Congress to stop these abuses. We must elect more of them. Please give what you can to stalwart civil libertarians like Donna Edwards and Alex Law.

Then, give your current representatives a call and tell them you want them to vote against any extension of the Patriot Act.

Are We Going To Put A Stop To The Surveillance State? No One Is Going To Do It For Us

This evening, Blue America sent all members a letter about the continued, unconstitutional bulk surveillance of American citizens by an out of control Security-Industrial Complex. This isn't going to go away by itself and it doesn't seem to matter much if Democrats or Republicans are in power. This is something ordinary citizens have to put a stop to; politicians aren't going to-- not unless they're forced to. (Although... perhaps an Independent...)

Hello Friends,

It seems like only yesterday that the congress pulled the intelligence and police agencies' dream legislation off the shelf where it had been blessedly  mouldering for years and passed it with little fanfare.  I'm speaking of the Patriot Act, a group of initiatives made into law in the wake of 9/11 as an emergency measure. As these things always seem to go, it has been on the books every since, a permanent fixture in our never-ending War on Terror. A police and military power once given to the government is almost never given back to the people.

The bill has been reauthorized several times since then, most recently in 2011 under President Obama. It is due to be revisited again in June and one of the key elements to be reauthorized are the provisions which allow bulk surveillance of American citizens by the NSA. The intelligence reforms the president has offered do virtually nothing to stop this unconstitutional government intrusion on our freedom so going through the congress is our only hope.

A number of progressive groups have banded together to ask congress to put an final expiration date on the program this year. It's gone on for over a decade and a half, growing in capability with precious little to show for the effort. The GOP majority is up in arms about its constitutional prerogatives being usurped by the executive-- this is one area where they can make a stand and they will be joined in bipartisan comity by many Democrats. If you'd care to help us send a message  to your congressperson you can sign the petition here:

Tell Congress to Put an Expiration Date on Unconstitutional Bulk Surveillance.

Blue America has been committed to the protection of our civil liberties from the beginning. We consider it one of the fundamental values required of any progressive politician. And so does Senator Bernie Sanders. When the Patriot Act was passed in 2001, he was one of 66 Democratic House members to vote against it. He's never voted for a reauthorization as a Senator. In 2012, on the occasion of the Snowden revelations, Sanders took to Youtube and said this:

"As one of the few members of Congress who consistently voted against the Patriot Act, I expressed concern at the time of passage that it gave the government far too much power to spy on innocent Americans. Unfortunately, what I said turned out to be exactly true. The United States government should not be accumulating phone records on tens of millions of innocent Americans. That is not what freedom is about. That is not what our constitution is about.”

We don't believe it is either. And we think it's important to support stalwarts like Senator Sanders who have taken a stand from the beginning. If he were to run for president you can be sure that he would be educating the people about the critical stakes they have in these issues at every whistle-stop and county fair.

We think it's important that a true civil libertarian is on the stump talking the talk over these next two years. We cannot leave the representation of this vital issue up to fringe Republican Rand Paul. There are many more civil libertarians in the Democratic Party and there is no better spokesman for them than Senator Bernie Sanders.

If you'd care to donate a few dollars to the cause, you can do so here.

Lesson for the GOP (including you, Tommy Thompson): If you live by the high-priced lie, you better watch your butt

GOP slug Dan Lungren says: "What I'm trying to do is transform the system so people participating as candidates can be held responsible for what is said." Ha-ha-ha!

by Ken

My goodness, this would be hilarious if it were . . . no, let's go with hilarious. Here's the start of a report by the NYT's Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, "Mauled by Ads, Incumbents Look to Declaw Outside Groups":

WASHINGTON -- An expansive onslaught of negative political advertisements in Congressional races has left many incumbents, including some Republicans long opposed to restrictions on campaign spending, concluding that legislative measures may be in order to curtail the power of the outside groups behind most of the attacks.

While Democrats have long denounced a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the gates on unlimited spending on advertisements, some Republicans are now growing more disenchanted with the system that has allowed the barrage of ads, often by shadowy groups, and the effects it has had on what they see as a sullen and disenchanted electorate.

"Once we get back, those that do get re-elected will all be commiserating about all the negative ads," said Representative Joe Heck of Nevada, a Republican who faced ads accusing him of voting against a rape crisis center and against money to help victims of domestic violence, among other things. "And that will start the groundswell for reform."

Representative Dan Lungren, a California Republican and the chairman the House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, has been a target of negative advertisements. He has drafted legislation that he said would force more responsibility for the tone and messages of the campaign onto the candidates and the political parties and away from the third-party groups. The staff of Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, is also working on proposals.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was expected to be an unalloyed advantage to Republicans, who have a deeper bench of rich individuals and corporations willing to finance candidates.

The decision has appeared to benefit Republicans over all this election cycle, as Republican money has poured into the presidential contest. Democrats say their third-party allies have also been outspent, by about two to one, in Senate campaigns. But the impact of Citizens United has come with complications, with some Republican incumbents in the House at a disadvantage. . . .

Oh, there's more, like Representative Lungren, in his capacity as chairman of the House Administration Committee, explaining the aim of the bill he intends to craft when (if?) he gets back to D.C.: "What I'm trying to do is transform the system so people participating as candidates can be held responsible for what is said."

And, oh yes, there's that loathsome slug Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX),

who runs the group charged with electing Republicans to the Senate [and] has said he thinks it would be worthwhile to examine the campaign finance system after the election.

"Revisiting the federal fund-raising restrictions and coordinated limits on both parties, and even smaller, common-sense steps like requiring electronic filing for federal candidates are a few good things that could be looked at next year," he said in an e-mail.

Can you believe it? In the entire history of mankind, has any group of humans ever done more to smash the concept of political accountability than the House and Senate Republicans?

Of course that was before it began to dawn on these slugs that He Who Lives by the High-Priced Lie May Also Take It Up the Butt. Oh, I don't expect much in the way of meaningful reform. As the NYT reporters note, the expectation that Citizens United would be a massive boon to the vaunted GOP lie machine (OK, they don't use those exact words) has proved generally correct. But notice how touchy the R's become when, at least in their own view, they're the victims -- bearing in mind always that there's no screeching self-styled victim like a Republican screeching self-styled villain.


MEANWHILE, WILL TOMMY THOMPSON SPEARHEAD
A GOP CLEANSING -- BY ENDING HIS CANDIDACY?

The logic seems impeccable to me. Now that we've gotten to the point where it has to be assumed that every word out of the mouth of every Republican is a lie, doesn't someone have to take a stand and draw the line somewhere? And who better than that loathsome toad former WI Gov. Tommy Thompson, now the GOP candidate to retiring Dem Sen. Herb Kohl.

I can see it now. A solemn Tommy addressed the assembled press contingent:

Thank you for coming, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be brief. In the wake of the shocking debacle of my campaign's "Dangerous Path" TV ad shockingly impugning the patriotism of my opponent, I have come to the realization that I am too dishonest and corrupt to live, let alone occupy public office. Accordingly, I am ending my candidacy for the U.S. Senate and withdrawing from all forms of government service.

I am not withdrawing entirely from public life, however. I will continue to salt away all the corporate cash I can in my D.C. influence-peddling office.

If you're not caught up on the scandal of the Thompson campaign's appalling "Dangerous Path" spot, you can check out a new post by Eugene Kiely for the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, "Smearing Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin Senate Race."

A false and vicious TV ad attacks Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin for voting against "honoring the victims of 9/11." The fact is, she voted to award three Congressional Gold Medals to honor the victims of the terrorist attacks in New York City, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

So what's the ad talking about? It cites her 2006 vote against a ceremonial resolution on the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 -- which Baldwin opposed because she said the GOP-drafted resolution "politicized" the anniversary by praising controversial legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act.

The ad, called "Dangerous Path," is yet another attempt to cast Baldwin as an extremist in Wisconsin's close Senate race. (We recently wrote about another TV ad sponsored by a pro-Israel group.) This ad -- sponsored by her Republican opponent, former Gov. Tommy Thompson -- says her "far left approach leaves this country in jeopardy."

Thompson's ad features military veterans and shows an image of the hulking ruins of the World Trade Center in New York. One of the veterans says Baldwin "had the opportunity to vote to honor the victims of 9/11 and she voted against it." Another says, "It's a slap in the face to every one of their families and anyone who has ever served in the United States military." . . .

What this is, however, according to FactCheck.org, "is a case of cherry-picking a vote to distort the facts. Baldwin did honor the victims of the terrorist attacks."

What the smear job did, in brief, was to take a vote on what the Kiely report calls "a ceremonial House resolution" in 2006, in anticipation of the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Rep. Tammy Baldwin was one of only 22 House members to vote against a proposed tribute. What the Thompson-campaign ad leaves out, however, is her reason for doing so. Kiely quotes a Capital Times report from Sept. 14, 2006:

Baldwin and other Democratic critics said the resolution drafted by Republicans praised controversial legislation like the USA Patriot Act and a border security bill.

Baldwin contended the GOP "disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution."

"Instead they converted the resolution into an endorsement of the Patriot Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose," she said in a statement explaining her vote.

She added it was disrespectful to the Sept. 11 victims and families to be "playing election year politics" with the anniversary.

Oops!

Of course Tammy can always be counted on to support legitimate 9/11 commemorations.

I suppose the Thompson-campaign brain trust is contemplating the necessity of some sort of weasel-worded non-apology. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if instead the governor came through with the sort of announcement I've fantasized above? Isn't it time for somebody to draw the line in the bullshit?

#

Wouldn't a lot of current events make sense if our "leaders" had been taken over (maybe had their spines removed?) by invading alien mutants?

Under the rule of The Guardians, government secrecy has been raised to the point where it's illegal for us even to know that there are secrets.

by Ken

Maybe the way to think of it is like we're living in a cheesy sci-fi flick, where some of the traditional malcontents of society begin to suspect that said society has in fact been taken over by alien mutants -- let's call them The Guardians.

Meanwhile The Guardians have solidified their control of the human race by "converting" people, especially the one formerly known as "leaders," through one of two surgical procedures: spinectomies, where their spines are totally excised, or intestinectomies, where their guts are removed and replaced by receptacles that suck up endless quantities of things called "dollars."

Eventually the discontent spreads throughout the land, and some of the great unwashed masses who haven't been converted yet, or whose conversion was imperfect, begin to gather in patches of urban wilderness where they voice the suspicion that all is not well with The Guardians.

In our cheesy sci-fi flick, all sorts of logically inexplicable things happen. Like there's a scene where a bunch of these "leaders," of the Allegedly Non-Evil kind, join a nefarious cabal called a Supercommittee and then hold guns to their own heads and shout, "Stop me before I kill! Or maybe don't!"

Past events too are explained, like The Guardians' fiendish hatching of a conspiracy against the people cunningly dubbed the Patriot Act, bestowing on The Guardians' stooges in government and law enforcement (oh yes, they've taken over both, filling them with people converted into stooges) secret powers to ferret out and exterminate anything that might be perceived as disloyalty to the masters.

And finally, finally we can make sense of something like this op-ed piece that appeared in the Washington Post. I really think we need to let Nicholas Merrill tell his own story, at least as far as the law allows him. (Additional links onsite.)

How the Patriot Act stripped me of my free-speech rights

By Nicholas Merrill, Published: October 25

Sometime in 2012, I will begin the ninth year of my life under an FBI gag order, which began when I received what is known as a national security letter at the small Internet service provider I owned. On that day in 2004 (the exact date is redacted from court papers, so I can't reveal it), an FBI agent came to my office and handed me a letter. It demanded that I turn over information about one of my clients and forbade me from telling "any person" that the government had approached me.

National security letters are issued by the FBI, not a judge, to obtain phone, computer, and banking information. Instead of complying, I spoke with a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a constitutional challenge against the NSL provision of the Patriot Act, which was signed into law 10 years ago Wednesday.

A decade later, much of the government's surveillance policy remains shrouded in secrecy, making it impossible for the American public to engage in a meaningful debate on the effectiveness or wisdom of various practices. The government has used NSLs to collect private information on hundreds of thousands of people. I am the only person from the telecommunications industry who received one to ever challenge in court the legality of the warrantless NSL searches and the associated gag order and to be subsequently (partially) un-gagged.

In 2004, it wasn't at all clear whether the FBI would charge me with a crime for telling the ACLU about the letter, or for telling the court clerk about it when I filed my lawsuit as "John Doe." I was unable to tell my family, friends, colleagues or my company's clients, and I had to lie about where I was going when I visited my attorneys. During that time my father was battling cancer and, in 2008, he succumbed to his illness. I was never able to tell him what I was going through.

For years, the government implausibly claimed that if I were able to identify myself as the plaintiff in the case, irreparable damage to national security would result. But I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that the FBI's gag order was motivated by legitimate national security concerns. It was motivated by a desire to insulate the FBI from public criticism and oversight.

In 2007, this newspaper made an exception to its policy against anonymous op-eds and published a piece I wrote about my predicament. In August 2010, the government agreed to a settlement, and I was finally allowed to reveal my name to the public in connection with my case, but I am still prevented -- under the threat of imprisonment -- from discussing any fact that was redacted in the thousands of pages of court documents, including the target of the investigation or what information was sought.

I don't believe that it's right for Americans' free speech rights to be bound by perpetual gag orders that can't be meaningfully challenged in a court of law. The courts agreed, but the NSLs and the gag orders live on. Now the FBI is supposed to notify NSL recipients that they can challenge a gag order -- but the government refuses to say how the court's ruling has been put into practice, or how many gag orders have been issued, challenged or reversed. This information is especially important since internal Justice Department investigations have found widespread violations of NSL rules by the FBI.

During the recent debate to reauthorize sections of the Patriot Act, two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) -- warned that the government is interpreting the law to conduct surveillance that does not follow from a plain reading of the text. "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry," Wyden said. As someone who had to keep silent and live a lie for the better part of a decade, in the false name of "national security," I know he's right.

The writer is executive director of the Calyx Institute, a nonprofit organization that promotes "best practices" with regard to privacy and freedom of expression in the telecommunications industry.

It doesn't get a lot more unpatriotic than the Patriot Act.

#

Remembering The Patriot Act

bipartisan

I started reading Nazi Hydra In America by Glen Yeadon and John Hawkins the other day and the very first page of the intro of the 700-plus page book went right at Bush and his penchant for fascism and dual and visceral disdain for civil liberties and the Constitution. Yeadon and Hawkins get right into the Patriot Act, the "ill-named" Patriot Act, which, they emphasize, "passed without a single congressman reading the bill."

[T]he printing of the bill had been deliberately delayed by the Bush administration to ensure passage. Written largely by Attorney General John Ashcroft, it was a full-scale assault on our rights and freedoms. This act eliminated our rights to unwarranted searches, the right to legal counsel, the right to a trial. It greatly expanded the government's ability to spy on citizens without a warrant.

Many people believed-- or at least entertained HOPE, a word that will soon come into play-- that Bush was an anomaly and a "normal" president would follow and get rid of this assault. CHANGE and HOPE elected Barack Obama in 2008. It's hard to imagine what could reelect him next year other than fear of something even worse than Bush as the alternative.

Obama was an Illinois state senator on October 25, 2001, the day the Senate took up the bill, so he didn't have to vote on it. Conservative Democrat Mary Landrieu was away from the Senate that day so she didn't vote. 98 other senators voted YEA, including then-Senator Joe Biden, and liberal stalwarts Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Schumer... and Paul Wellstone. as well as less liberal Democrats, from Hillary Clinton and Blanche Lincoln to Ben Nelson and John Breaux and every single Republican, obviously. "Mr. Constitution," Robert Byrd, voted for it as well. One senator voted NAY: Russ Feingold, who was recently defeated by delusional Wisconsin voters, brain-washed by millions of dollars worth of advertising financed by the Koch Brothers and China. Wisconsin went from being able to boast having the Giant of The Senate to being represented by a clueless backbencher pip-squeak, nervous all the highly unpopular commotion being made by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Congressman Paul Ryan could have a negative impact on his cush new life in the country's most exclusive club.

The day before the Senate gave Bush the thumbs up to make a mockery of the Constitution and basically rule as a tyrant, the House had already passed the bill 357-77. Three Republican constitutionalists-- of whom only one, Ron Paul, is still in Congress-- joined Bernie Sanders, then an Independent congressman from Vermont and 62 Democrats in opposition. Aside from Paul, the only Members of Congress still serving who voted against the Patriot Act were

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), currently in the Senate
Mike Capuano (D-MA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Danny Davis (D-IL)
Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
George Miller (D-CA)
Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
John Olver (D-MA)
Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Jan Scakowsky (D-IL)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Mark Udall (D-CO), currently in the Senate
Tom Udall (D-NM), currently in the Senate
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Mel Watt (D-NC)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
David Wu (D-OR)

Among the Democrats joining the GOP to vote for the act were Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Weiner, Steny Hoyer, now-NJ Senator Bob Menendez, Marcy Kaptur, Henry Waxman, current DCCC-Chair Steve Israel, Charlie Rangel... and other Beltway Democrats we had a right to expect would step up. Needless to say, self-proclaimed strict constructionists like then-Congressmen Jim DeMint, Roy Blunt, David Vitter, Mark Kirk, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr and Rob Portman, now Tea Party string puller Dick Armey, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Darrell Issa, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, and wannabe senators Denny Rehberg and Jeff Flake were as happy to shred the Constitution then as they always are.

Nice to know who's who in these matters after the passions of the moment die down a little.

Do Democrats in DC Get Neutered Before Taking Up Residence?

It seems like it's been decades since gruesomely conflicted Beltway Democrats, struggling with the absurdity of trying to maintain a Big Tent-- and keep the corporate money flowing-- had the courage of their convictions and even a modicum of, as Hemmingway put it, grace under fire. Instead of bold leadership, we've come to expect weak, pale compromises as a matter of course. Yesterday Conrad was in total Beltway mindset-- trading some cheap temporary tax increases for giving the far right their 7 and a half decades long dream-- opening the door of dissolving the social compact embodied by Social Security. "But the Senate’s vote coupled with Democrats’ willingness to give ground on entitlement cuts would make the pressure to compromise exceptionally strong, Conrad said." That isn't a Democrat; that's a Beltway Democrat.

Beltway Democrats are so insecure that they're always rooting around in the intellectual garbage bin of Republicanism finding terrible GOP ideas to claim as their own. Now we have Democrats stuck with a complicated, shady loser of an idea like widely unpopular healthcare mandates, a Republican concept from a time when "right wing" could be placed just about where the Beltway Democrats are today (the GOP have moved on to undreamed of places). Why didn't the Beltway Democrats pass single payer when they had a chance? Did they expect the GOP to support them? To be less vitriolic in their denunciations just because mandates were a (bad) Republican idea? These political hacks actually deserve the torment they've been served up. The fact that they're all that stands in between the rest of us and out-and-out fascism is nothing short of frightening-- especially when you consider that only 62 (+ Bernie Sanders) in the House and just one (Russ Feingold) in the Senate had the guts grace under imaginary fire to vote against Bush's fascist, unconstitutional and grotesquely misnamed Patriot Act in 2001.


Raul Grijalva reminded me this morning that Ed Markey had a much more progressive position on global warming that was widely backed by progressives but that the conservative cap-and-trade point of view became the "consensus" that progressives got stuck with by following Democratic Beltway leadership. This one-hand tied behind one's back position makes negotiations untenable. The progressive budget-- which is the only one of the 3 Democratic proposals calling for ending the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and the only one that actually calls for a concrete end of oil subsidies-- wasn't supported by The Leadership and now the official Democratic position (Van Hollen's conservative Establishment perspective is the House Democrats' alternative to the bizarre and extremist GOP bill.

Yesterday Ezra Klein asked (and answered) What went wrong with cap-and-trade? Another half-assed, long-discarded Republican halfway measure that was conceived to fail... embraced by clueless, cowardly, conflicted Beltway Democrats. Cap-and-trade was never a progressive solution; it was, at best, an enlightened conservative position-- perfect for the Beltway crowd:

A few years ago, cap-and-trade was, if not a consensus position in the Republican Party, then at least one with substantial support. John McCain had his own plan-- a plan he continued to promote through the 2008 election-- and he wasn’t, by any means, fighting a lonely battle. In fact, one of his co-sponsors was then-Sen. Barack Obama [the others: Lieberman and Snowe]. In the states, a number of Republican governors were also pursuing cap-and-trade plans, including Tim Pawlenty, who’s now running for president and has denounced his efforts to fight climate change as a terrible mistake.

On Wednesday in San Francisco President Obama called out climate change deniers in Congress. Though mostly Republicans, there are plenty of Blue Dogs and other ConservaDems who are just as guilty. Obama kept it general:

"There are climate change deniers in Congress and when the economy gets tough, sometimes environmental issues drop from people's radar screens," Obama told about 200 guests at the Pacific Heights residence of internet billionaire Marc Benioff, according to an official transcript. "But I don't think there's any doubt that unless we are able to move forward in a serious way on clean energy that we're putting our children and our grandchildren at risk. So that's not yet done."

Is cap-and-trade that "serious way?" It's certainly the conservative way-- as opposed to the reactionary way (denial).



David Spratt's book, Climate Code Red, is based on an idea Beltway Democrats order their lives around: habitual low expectations and a culture of failure. "There is an urgent need to understand global warming and the tipping points for dangerous impacts that we have already crossed as a sustainability emergency, that takes us beyond the politics of failure-inducing compromise. We are now in a race between climate tipping points and political tipping points." In an interview with Ross Garnaut, who was an advisor to the Australian Labor government at the time, Spratt makes the point that the business as usual Democratic approach to climate change-- although its core meaning could have just as well been said about any and all change Obama didn't deliver on-- is that "the essence of the solution is to recognize the need, based on the scientific imperatives, to de-carbonize the economy as fast as humanly possible, for the state and society to plan and support a rapid transition far beyond the speed at which market mechanisms can effectively work. Given the emergency speed at which this must be done, simply using price mechanisms will lead to a policy failure with catastrophic consequences for most people and most species.

"It is fatuous to believe that simple pricing/market mechanisms can achieve the wholesale restructuring of society in the decade or two we have to achieve this task before the falling dominoes of carbon cycle feedbacks start crashing around our ears, signalling that we have left it too late to stop the climate catastrophe sweeping far beyond the capacity of human action to further affect its trajectory."

Interesting Aisle Crossing In Both Directions

Teabaggers are like normal Americans when it comes to Bush's misnamed Orwellian PATRIOT Act

As Rachel Maddow pointed out, the House Republicans are taking it very easy legislatively-- some noisy, divisive statements every few minutes, a lot of huffing and puffing, some symbolic votes to placate their extremist base... but nothing substantive that could possibly be mistaken by anyone other than a brain-dead teabagger for serious legislating. Tuesday they came roaring to life and introduced two bills-- one to extend Bush's hatred PATRIOT Act and one to push forward some pro-outsourcing, so-called "free trade" legislation-- which voters who thought the party was serious about creating jobs in America may want to think about carefully next time. Anyway, Cantor managed to botch both bills miserably and-- as usual-- accomplished nothing whatsoever.

The trade bill outraged many Republicans and looked like it would fail, so Cantor pulled it at the last minute, egg dripping from his face. The PATRIOT Act extension just lost because Cantor hasn't learned how to count yet. He's too busy puffing himself up railing about defunding healthcare for hard-pressed American families. The GOP trade bill was abruptly pulled after some of the wingnuts in the caucus read it and decided it allows for too much government interference in the economy. What they objected to are the good parts of the bill-- providing aid and training to workers who lose their jobs or see their hours or wages reduced due to increased imports. Republicans now plan to hold these reauthorizations hostage to get Democrats to support their really bad job-exporting "free trade" legislation with South Korea, Panama and Colombia.

Cantor losing on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act was more embarrassing because he just pointed out he isn't paying any attention and is in over his head in his new job as Majority Leader. The bill was offered under suspension, meaning it would need a 2/3 majority, which Cantor felt would be easy with his huge majority plus plenty of Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats along for the ride. But he's apparently not good with fractions. Although 67 Democrats did go along with him and Boehner-- retiring warmonger Jane Harman among them, of course-- 26 Republicans, many newly elected teabaggers bailed on the authoritarian legislation. It failed 277-148. Aside from Harman, other Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Boehner and Cantor for this despised bill were many of the worst of the worst among Democratic Members of Congress, whose default positions are almost always to vote with Boehner:

Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
Mark Critz (PA)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Larry Kissell (NC)
Lipinski, Jr (IL)
Stephen Lynch (MA)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)
Adam Schiff (Blue Dog-CA)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)

But they were joined by three top Democratic House leaders, Steny Hoyer, the Minority Whip; Steve Israel, chair of the DCCC; and Chris Van Hollen, assistant-something-or-other in charge of pomposity and doing nothing. They're all from Maryland, but I don't think it's a Maryland thing since the most popular member of that state's delegation, Donna Edwards, voted against it.

In November the only congressional Marylander not reelected was pathetic corporate shill and Blue Dog Frank Kratovil, who had his ass kicked by a weak teabagging idiot. Barbara Mikulski won reelection to the Senate with 62%, while all the House Members did very well-- Ruppersberger (64%), Sarbanes (61%), Hoyer (64%), Bartlett (62%), Cummings (75%), Van Hollen (73%)... as you can see they all look immensely popular. But not only did Donna Edwards walk away with 84% of the vote, she also drew the biggest number of voters-- 148,857 people, as opposed to just 127,110 for Ruppersberger and around 137,000 each for both Van Hollen and Sarbanes. In the big county in the district, Prince George's, Donna took a mind-boggling 95% of the vote, outstripping even Obama's 89%, his best-performing county in the entire state. Sometimes people actually appreciate real leadership... and respond.

Anyway, back to Cantor's failure-- he's furiously trying to shift the blame to his barely qualified new Whip Kevin McCarthy-- to deliver the reauthorization. The story in the media has been how 26 Republicans crossed the aisle and voted against the heinous bill with progressives, rather than more than twice as many conservative Democrats voting with the GOP.

Deserting and embarrassing their GOP House leadership, 26 Republicans--including several members of the Tea Party Caucus-- bolted Tuesday night to join Democrats in a surprise rejection of a centerpiece of Bush-era powers to fight terrorism that curbed American civil liberties.

The House Republican leaders had expected an easy victory in their efforts to reauthorize three expiring powers under the PATRIOT Act-- among them, allowing ''roving wiretaps'' and searches of people's medical, banking, and library records. It is likely the GOP will succeed in a later vote, but Tuesday night's rebuff sent a strong message.

By a 277-148 margin, the bill fell just shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the House under suspension of the rules, representing somewhat of an embarrassment for House Republicans on a matter of national security. Republicans were accusing Democrats, many of whom had supported the extension of the provisions in the 111th Congress, of hypocrisy.

...What was at stake were key privacy provisions of Americans that were amended following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The 26 Republicans, including eight freshmen, were joined by 122 Democrats in opposition to the bill.

In a statement released on Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said he was counting on tea party support to help defeat the extension.

"The 112th Congress began with a historic reading of the U.S. Constitution. Will anyone subscribe to the First and Fourth Amendments tomorrow when the PATRIOT Act is up for a vote? I am hopeful that members of the tea party who came to Congress to defend the Constitution will join me in challenging the reauthorization," Kucinich said.

The bill would reauthorize three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act until December 8. The provisions are set to expire at the end of the month if Congress does not act.

The provisions give the government the ability to use roving wiretaps to monitor the communications of suspects; obtain special court orders forcing businesses, libraries and banks to turn over records; and conduct surveillance on a so-called "lone wolf," someone who is not knowingly associated with terrorists.

Among the teabaggers abandoning Boehner and Cantor and other aggressive proponents of an authoritarian national security state were not just a handful of principled mainstream conservatives like Walter Jones (NC), Don Young (AK), Tim Johnson (IL) and Ron Paul (TX) but also many of the most deranged and extremist fanatic loons like Justin Amash (MI), John Bircher Paul Broun (GA), Chris Gibson (NY), Tom Graves (GA), Randy Hultgren (IL), Raul Labrador (ID), Tom McClintock (CA), Dave Schweikert (AZ), Bobby Schilling (IL) and Rob Woodall (GA).

Co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison welcomed the Republicans along for opposing a bill that gives the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the country and, in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing, let alone anything related to terrorism or national security.

“This was a crucial victory for civil rights and restoring the Constitution to its central place in American life,” Grijalva said after the vote. “I was proud to help lead the charge against this offensive attack on our liberties, and I thank my colleagues for taking a stand when it mattered most. This is not the last time we’ll have this fight, and the CPC will push to protect the American people from unreasonable search and seizure until we return to a more justifiable and reasonable policy.”

“Taking away liberties and spying on our citizens is not what the American people voted for last November,” Ellison said. “Instead of focusing on job number one-- jobs-- the Republican leadership has chosen to take away our freedoms with one hand while handing out pink slips with the other.”

UPDATE: Another Longtime Right Wing Bugaboo: The U.N.

The Republicans lost on suspension again yesterday when Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's anti-UN bill (the United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act) was brought up and went down 259-169. Only 2 Republicans, both New Yorkers Michael Grimm and Peter King, voted with the Democrats but 23 mostly right-wing Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP. Boehner Boys Altmire, Boren, Chandler, Cooper, Critz, Donnelly, Holden, Kissell, Matheson, McIntyre, Peterson, Ross and Shuler all voted with the Republicans... but that isn't news. The idea of the bill was to reclaim $180 million in dues already paid to the UN and limit future participation in the organization. Despite false GOP advertising as a deficit reduction measure, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would have no effect on the federal budget. Meanwhile, looking like amateurs and clowns, Cantor and McCarthy are blaming each other for who can't count votes (worse).

After the vote Keith Ellison said this was just “another blatant attempt by the Republican Party to pander to its tiny base of support... effectively undermine U.S. foreign policy as well as the security of our homeland while failing to create a single new job. Raúl Grijalva added that the bill, which certainly wasn't ever going to be considered by President Obama anyway, is just "another in a string of pointless exercises by Republican leaders more interested in their base than the rest of the American people. Nonpartisan experts had already told them this wouldn’t really save a dime, and they put their pet issues over job creation anyway. We need substance over symbolism. This isn’t the right way to manage the people’s business, and I’m glad my colleagues made the right decision.”

Hear Anything About Congress Sneaking Through An Extension Of The "Patriot Act"?

Yesterday evening the House voted to concur in some Senate amendments that were tacked onto the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act. John Dingell (D-MI) was the chief sponsor, and six decent Democrats co-sponsored it: Robert Andrews (NJ), George Miller (CA), Frank Pallone (NJ), Charlie Rangel (NY), Pete Stark (CA) and Henry Waxman (CA). It sounded innocent enough, and it passed 315-97. But the voting breakdown looked weird to me. A mixed bag of 10 Republicans and an awful lot of the best liberals in Congress were in opposition. I mean Ron Paul and Don Young and Jason Chaffetz on the one hand, and then Waxman, a co-sponsor, along with much of the Progressive Caucus joining them, as well as some random sleazy Blue Dogs. Too strange. I called around and realized it was the extension of the hated-- and misnamed-- Patriot Act! The Senate had passed it by an unrecorded unanimous voice vote the day before. Sneaky, sneaky.

One of those Progressive Caucus members who voted "no," Yvette Clarke (D-NY), explained why: “While we continue to bolster tools that help protect our nation, it is important that we do not allow our citizens’ civil liberties to be violated or abused in any way. This is why I voted against H.R. 3961. Our government must protect our homeland while also respecting our right to privacy.”

According to Reuters, "Democrats had sought changes to protect law-abiding U.S. citizens, but Republicans managed to tie up their efforts, arguing that changes would undermine the tracking of suspected enemies of the United States." It looks like hawkish Dems like Jane Harman teamed up with the GOP to kill the reforms.

Thank God we're rid of that neanderthal Bush and we have a brilliant constitutional scholar as president instead... right? No Hope/No Change:



UPDATE: Does Torture Feel Any Better When Democrats Back It?

Today the House passed the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act by a 235-168 vote, Cao the only Republican voting with the Democrats. Meanwhile another handful of strange bedfellows-- from progressives Kucinich, Filner, McDermott, Woolsey and Payne to reactionaries Herseth Sandlin and Space-- voting with the GOP obstructionists. Progressives objected because the bill does not include Jim McDermott's provision aimed at prohibiting harsh interrogation techniques. Reactionary Democrats like Jane Harman combined with Republicans to kill that.

Interestingly, when the Republicans tried (and failed) to kill the bill with their motion to recommit, 28 Democrats joined them, mostly pro-torture conservatives like John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA), Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ), Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS), Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), John Adler (D-NJ), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Lil' Lipinksi (TN/IL), Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA) and Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA).

Courtesy of Jesus' General, Gen. JC Christian, Patriot: Republican Jesus reaches out to Obama

[Thanks to Patriotboy]
#