House Liberals Support FISA - What House Liberals?!

Over at Talking Points Memo they are doing their normal stellar work.    And they are reporting on the "resistance" to your rights being taken away by "house liberals".   I'm begining to think those are something like what they use to call "house negroes".  

The entire House leadership is supporting the bill, confirms Stacey Bernards, a spokesperson for House Dem leader Steny Hoyer. But where are the House liberals? They are the key group to watch, because their mini-revolt against the legislation last week was taken as a sign that there would be heavy pressure on the House leadership not to capitulate by giving the administration too much power over wiretapping.

So where are they? According to House Dem aides, House liberals appear to be leaning in the direction of supporting the legislation -- though nothing is at all certain.

Ha. Their "their mini-revolt against the legislation last week".   No need to present real revolt.  The mini will do.  Don't want to endanger their fat house benefits and fat house salary.  

Their mini revolt is no longer.  

The so-called "house liberals" have once again caved.   Perhaps the new "its so easy even a cave man could do it" Sit Com could feature House Liberals.  Opposing the most corrupt fucked up administration ever...its so easy even a house liberal could do it (note to studio execs: the "its so easy even a dem leader could do it pilot failed miserably", no one is expecting to watch that show after the Pelosi Reid proved they can't do anything...shit...do you remember when it was believable that a dem majority would not be treated like and act like crack whores?)  And now, even the "house liberals" aren't making any real opposition.  Perhaps we will have to rely on the cave man.  

Until a house member resigns in protest I will not believe any of them are decent people.  There are national guard units spending years in Iraq.   Kids who just signed up to try to get a college education and help out their country if there was a reason to guard their nation.  They've been fighting in cities in Iraq.  For years.  Until someone resigns from congress and denounces the travesty there, they all have blood on their hands.  More every day.  

Liberal members of congress.  Go fuck yourselves.   You don't exist.  and if you didn't mind sending people to die for no reason, you'd speak up.  or quit.  

It ain't your kids.  And there is no such thing as a liberal member of congress.  

•  asdf

  Until a house member resigns in protest I will not believe any of them are decent people

  Mama always told me not to be a quitter, but I'll email Barney Frank straight away and demand he resign.

  by ablington on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 07:40:30 PM PDT

  •  albington

    tell me what good frank is doing in his current position?

    got any family members currently in afghanistan or iraq?  What is he doing for them?

    by onemadson on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 07:44:36 PM PDT

    •  today?

      How about voting for the War Profiteering Act?

      Does that meet your purity test?

      by greenreflex on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:01:40 PM PDT

      •  yeah

        i'm sure they got a good laugh out of the war profiteering act at Halliburton.

        hasn't war profiteering always been illegal?  

        by onemadson on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:03:18 AM PDT

        •  did you read it?

          The bill makes war profiteering – overcharging in order to defraud or profit excessively from war, military action, or reconstruction efforts – a felony subject to up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal profits of the crime. It confers jurisdiction to U.S. federal courts to hear such cases no matter where they might occur.

          by greenreflex on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:15:12 PM PDT

          •  i read it

            this has always been illegal.  As has warrantless wiretapping, torture, etc, etc.  

            They are passing a bill saying this is illegal when it already was.  How about they investigate the missing nine billion?

            Or maybe they could condemn moveon's ad again.  

            by onemadson on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:15:34 PM PDT

    •  Oy.

      by ablington on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:36:33 AM PDT

•  This is why you should

  run for Congress.

  by GussieFN on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 07:40:35 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    there are two options right now for anyone who isn't black of heart.

    1.  throw out your other plans for your life and become a politician.

    2.  Drop out and let these fuckers kill each other like they always have done.

    I'm on the fence.

    by onemadson on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 07:45:57 PM PDT

  •  But he would have to resign upon taking the

    oath of office

    by mr crabby on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:39:32 PM PDT

    •  actually I don't think i'm able to hold office

      i won't say the pledge of allegiance because I don't believe in god.

      And i won't put my hand on a bible to take the oath.

      Both of those would be dishonest based on my beliefs.  

      And I wouldn't pass my own purity test.  

      by onemadson on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:04:44 AM PDT

•  Today's FISA Bill is not the same

  as Hoyer's stillborn draft. Not yet a GOOD bill, but no longer  flat-out bad.

  by ben masel on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:23:02 PM PDT

  •  Hoyer Is Still Working Very Hard To Make It As

    flat-out bad as possible.

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says Democrats are willing to give President Bush much-desired immunity in the new FISA bill. But first, they want to know what those telecoms have actually been doing. TPM

    Also is this little tidbit on the FP of TPM

    A Hill Republican writes in ...

       What on Earth is going on inside the House Democratic Caucus?

       What am I not understanding?

       Why are House Democrats about to unveil a new FISA bill that is almost indistinguishable from what the White House wants?

       I have to admit that I am completely stumped to see how this debate is unfolding, and I don’t get that worked up about the inner workings of the HDC….

    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:40:42 PM PDT

    •  Which bill was "Hill Republican"

      writing about?

      by ben masel on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:28:34 PM PDT

•  Actually There Are Some Good House Liberals

  My Rep is one of them and thank you very much but I would prefer to keep him since he is one of the few Dems that I'm proud of. He has never rolled over on Iraq or FISA no matter what pressure he might be under from our Capitulating Leadership. So there are a few that they can not peel away. Unfortunately, for the country there are not enough of them willing to stand firm.

  Resigning in protest would just leave the space open for Rahm or the current House recruiter to fill the space with another so called moderate member like maybe the very moderate Shular.

  I can understand your anger and frustration but I don't think your solution is the way to go.

  by MO Blue on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 08:34:44 PM PDT

•  Where are the progressives?

  The "mini-revolt" referred to was simply a statement by the Progressive Caucus of what they required to be in the bill in order to support it:

  We, Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, fully recognizing we live in a dangerous world but proud of, and deeply committed to, the values that have made the United States an exemplar for the world, affirm the following principles to guide consideration over the debate regarding surveillance of foreign intelligence. We hold that these principles represent the pillars by which America gives no quarter to terrorists who would do our country harm, while at the same time ensuring fidelity to the distinctively American commitment to the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and separation of powers.

  1. It should be the policy of the United States that the objective of any authorized program of foreign intelligence surveillance must be to ensure that American citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers, and effects, but makes terrorists throughout the world feel insecure.

  2. The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially enacted by Congress, the exclusivity of FISA was unambiguous. Legislation must reiterate current law that FISA is the exclusive means to authorize foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil.

  3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be modernized to accommodate new technologies and to make clear that foreign to foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even though modern technology enables that communication to be routed through the United States.

  4. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. This oversight should include, where possible, regular judicial approval and review of surveillance, of whose communications will be collected, of how it will be gathered, and of how content and other data in communications to and from the United States will be handled.

  5. Congress must have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected and the authority to require court orders when it becomes clear that a certain program or surveillance of a target is scooping up communications of U.S. persons.

  6. Once the government has reason to believe that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons' communications.

  7. Congress should not grant amnesty to any telecommunications company or to any other entity or individual for helping the NSA spy illegally on innocent Americans. The availability of amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.

  8. Authorization to conduct foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The threats to America’s security and the liberties of its people will change over time and require constant vigilance by the people’s representatives in Congress.

  Has it occurred to you that they may be considering supporting it because it meets these requirements?

  by acerimusdux on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 10:15:11 PM PDT