Throughout this whole FISA debacle, I've had in the very back of my mind the question "why are Democrats shooting themselves in the foot by letting FISA through?" I know why most of the Republicans are covering their asses and voting to give telecom immunity and make sure their 'favorite' president doesn't get into any more trouble than it's worth. However, there is no clear reason why the Democrats (including Obama) are so readily capitulating to the Republicans' demands.
It's fairly obvious that if they simply let this slide, the existing FISA system which is in place will work just as effectively, and the problems with the current system must not be that severe if the president himself will veto anything short of a full "cover-my-ass" bill. So, in the long run, not voting with this bill will likely help them more than hurt them.
So, I simply ask, why are so many giving in so readily?
Now, there is a list of reasons which involve lobbyist money and such and there are a long list of reasons why this would naturally drag a few people across the isle.
There is also the possibility that some of the Democrats are simply involved in some fashion with the illegal spying and are covering themselves against anyone saying negative things about their "patriotism" or "strength to defend America".
However, last night someone brought up a really interesting possibility which kinda shocked me. If I was more paranoid, I'd say it could have some real possibility of being true.
The president has been illegally spying for the last 5+ years now on almost all Americans, recording a ton of internet and voice traffic. Naturally, if the net was wide enough, his group would also have potentially recorded a lot of conversations and discussions which could potentially include these congresspeople and senators and not be illegal simply because the net was a capture-all-traffic operation.
Naturally, this would be a very forboding dagger to hold over someone's head. Especially a person running for re-election. This is, in fact, one of the biggest dangers of having a system where one party has privacy, but the other doesn't. It suddenly becomes a lot easier for those little verbal slip-ups over the phone to turn into something disastrous, or for all of the laundry of one party to be aired publicly while the other sits pretty knowing they control the surveillance apparatus.
I laughed at the idea, and told him if I was truly paranoid that things had gotten that bad, I would say this is a likely scenario and that's why they are so desperate to capitulate. However, I still have some hope that things are not that bad. So, I guess I'm not that paranoid... yet. Simply put, I'm betting this is most likely a lot of money, very little realization as to why this bill is a completely awful travesty or the hope that in the end the bill won't be permanent, so it won't hurt too much. Not permanent in a fashion similar to the "Alien and Sedition Acts" of John Adams presidency, which were also terrible ideas, but were not permanent fixtures of American policy.
However, I would love to hear other reasons. If netroots are to prevent similar bills like this in the future from being passed, it would be helpful to know the reasons behind the Democratic split. Any thoughts?