FISA: The good guys win a big one

First off, Steny Hoyer, I apologize for anything I might have ever said about you in relation to the Blue Dogs and FISA. I was wrong. You were great today. Thank you. The shrewd planning of Pelosi and Reid really tied the Republicans in knots, taking away all of their tricks for derailing the bill through obnoxious and obstructionist procedural maneuvering. Chairs Conyers and Reyes were excellent in sheparding their committee members.

Particularly deserving of thanks, though, are those Freshman Dems who would not be intimidated by everything being thrown at them by the Republicans--the robocalls to their constituents saying they were with the terrorists, the deceitful and inflammatory Defense of Democracy's crazy television ads. Particularly of note are Mike Arcuri who managed the Rule on this vote, and Nancy Boyda, Carol Shea-Porter and others who stood on the floor during these debates and strongly stood up for our civil liberties. You can show your support for them here.

As for those 21 Blue Dogs who wrote that letter a few weeks ago telling Pelosi she should rubberstamp the bad Senate bill, that letter that the Republicans tried to use to bludgeon the Dems about "bipartisanship"? SevenFive (I'm math impaired) of them, Shuler, Boren, Cooper, Holden, and Carney stuck with the Republicans. Lincoln Davis voted present. (The remaining "no" votes among Dems who are progressives and are generally opposed to surveillance legislation at all.) Thanks to the hard work of leadership in whipping the remaining 16, as well as all of you who made phone calls and sent e-mails for flipping them. And thank you 16 for doing the right thing. You showed the Senate it can be done.

Lists and contact info below the fold.

Update: Links to roll call votes, relevant ones are 144 (the Rule) and 145 (final passage).

Update II: Take special note of this story from Los Diablo, who just called Rep. Boswell's office:

...they thanked me for thanking him because they are getting a hammered with negative calls because he supported this.

The same is probably true in a lot of Blue Dog offices. Your calls can make the difference between pride and regret. [Kagro X]

The hang-tough Dems:

• Jason Altmire (PA-04), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Mike Arcuri (NY-24), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Nancy Boyda (KS-02), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Joe Courtney (CT-02), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Joe Donnelly (IN-02), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Paul Hodes (NH-02), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Steve Kagen (WI-08), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Ron Klein (FL-22), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Tim Mahoney (FL-16), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Harry Mitchell (AZ-05), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Christopher Murphy (CT-05), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Tim Walz (MN-01), Phone:  [phone], Fax: [phone]

The Blue Dogs who were with us:

• Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, D-Ala. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone] [did not vote]
• Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

The Blue Dogs who were with the Republicans:

• Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
• Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

•  yeah!

  by aaraujo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:16 PM PDT

  •  It's the early Cheers

    for Cheers and Jeers today!

    The 7 Dems who capitulated must be replaced.

    by f furney on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:16:55 PM PDT

    •  Wasn't Shuler considered.....

      one of the big wins for Dems 2006?

      by james1108 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:21:47 PM PDT

      •  And we can consider it a gain

        when he loses in 2008 and someone who respects the Constitution replaces him.

        by f furney on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM PDT

        •  careful about that

          this is tennessee after all.  he just needs to be gently reminded for the next go round on this.

          by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM PDT

          •  NC not TN n/t

            by maizenblue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, at least get the state right

              by homoaffectional on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM PDT

            •  he was a Vol

              I'm a red stater and I got my red states confused.  I always associate him with Tennessee because he played there.

              by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:25:25 PM PDT

              •  And

                ..since we're neighbors, TN probably comes into play with friends, neighbors and relatives.

                by randallt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:11:29 PM PDT

      •  yup

        what up with that one?  he was all talk about government intrusion during his election and he caves on wire tapping.

        also dissappointed about the boren legacy who voted with the R's too.

        how is he related to the former senator?

        by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM PDT

        •  He is his son

          I'm more forgiving towards Shuler than Boren; Shuler has a more tenuous hold on office and is probably as good as we can get out of this district.  Boren, though, could have survived doing the right thing here.

          I'm especially impressed with the frosh and the Dogs who did the right thing.

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:36:09 PM PDT

          •  I called my neighbor congressman

            I refuse to call bill jefferson's office, so I called Charlie Melancon's office.

            The receptionist was totally confused.

            Hopefully he just ticks off that there was at least 1 positive call about it.

            by MFL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:26:57 PM PDT

      •  He lives in a really, really conservative

        district.  I am not making excuses for him, just sayin'.

        by oibme on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:44:15 PM PDT

      •  . . . and he won with a whole lot

        of netroots money behind him.  Not sure if he was an actblue candidate, but I'm pretty sure he was.

        by dbratl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM PDT

        •  I had an ActBlue page for him

          But we seemed to concede that pitch among progressives to our neighbor down the road, Mr. Kissell.

          by randallt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM PDT

          •  I do remember that . . .

            His name came up in my move on call for change thing.  I made some calls on his behalf.

            by dbratl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:48:11 PM PDT

      •  Shuler was the "more"...

        "More and better Democrats" is a nice slogan, but now that we have more, we need BETTER Democrats.

        Heath Shuler falls ridiculously short of that higher goal.

        by jimbo92107 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:46:18 PM PDT

    •  I also think we should challenge Boswell...

      even though he voted the right way today, he's voted in favor of surveillance without a warrant twice. He was one of the Reps. who signed that letter. My guess is that the only reason Boswell voted the right way today was because of the primary challenge he faces. Ed Fallon is running against him in Iowa's 3-cd. Fallon is a strong progressive who will not be a weak-kneed Dem like Boswell has been.

      We really need to get behind Fallon's candidacy folks. We're missing an opportunity to elect a great Democrat and replace a blue dog.

      Learn more about Fallon here. Donate to Fallon here.

      by sarahlane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:30:55 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for the link to Boswell's primary

        challenger who is endorsed by DFA.  The video, "Ed turns 50" is pretty witty for a politician.

        by The Totalizer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:44:03 PM PDT

        •  Last week the blogger group I'm a part of EENR

          endorsed Fallon's candidacy. I researched Boswell's record and where Ed Fallon stands on the issues. There are major differences between Boswell and Fallon. I penned a diary showcasing some of those differences. A biggie for me is the fact that Ed Fallon wants to remove the lobbyist influence in DC, while Boswell stuffs his coffers with PAC/lobbyist money. In just one year's time 73% of Boswell's donations were from PACs. Fallon has never taken a dime from PACs/lobbiyists and is an advocate for public financing of elections. Fallon has said that he will either author or co-sponsor public financing legislation if he's elected to the House. You can bet the farm that Boswell will never do such a thing.

          by sarahlane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM PDT

  •  Well, what do you know?

    Maybe Melissa Bean DID read my letter.

    by Rorgg on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:31:22 PM PDT

    •  Did your letter mention Donna Edwards? ;)

      by EquationDoc on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM PDT

      •  Shall we designate Donna Edwards

        the "Ghost of Christmas Future" in this? "Now Scrooge, I am your future if you don't pay attention."

        by pelagicray on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, me too!@

      Good on you!  I called her twice, and wrote her an email.  She said no to my first email.  I called her today to congratulate her and tell her it is NOT too late to impeach, and a staffer took the message.

      by JDog42 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM PDT

    •  I wonder if the Foster - Oberwiesssss...

      election results might have proved motivational for Ms. Bean??

      by Timoteo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:28:23 PM PDT

      •  I think that election had more to do . . .

        . . . with this win than anything else.  Across the board.  One thing politicians can do is read election results.

        by dbratl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:38:47 PM PDT

      •  Knowing how this works, at least in theory...

        I tried to push my point that hyper-unpopular Bush had been outmaneuvered in this and had lost the public support.  Did she want to be on the wrong side of that?

        She beat her primary challenger like 76-24 or something, so I figured I needed to do something to explore the positives of going against the republicans in a R+5 district or whatever we're in.

        by Rorgg on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM PDT

  •  If possible, make a donation to a blue dog . . .

    . . . on that list that you have some affection or affinity for.  

    I just donated 20.01 (not a ton, but not nothing either) to Jon Barrow, congressman of nearby Athens, Georgia.

    I also called his office to thank them personally.

    It's critically important that we reward for good behavior as well as scream for bad behavior.

    by dbratl on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM PDT

•  Fisa is important

  but can we possibly have front page action on the economy? It seems to always be a rec list thing...

  by Steven R on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:23 PM PDT

  •  Be happy,,,

    it even gets on the rec list.

    Between Hillary-is-Satan and Obama-is-God, I'm surprised we got even one diary on there about the economy.

    I'll take what I can get at this point.

    by Miss Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM PDT

    •  which one will you take?

      Hillary is satan?
      or
      Obama is god?

      Oh, wait. you were being sarcastic. I see.

      by agnostic on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:05:50 PM PDT

    •  not that i disagree

      and i do appreciate that the pro-Hillary/anti-Obama camp here is significantly less craptastic than over at the cesspool formerly known as MYDD, but gimme a break.

      how about we celebrate a huge and important victory for our country and our constitution and save the vitriol for side diaries or something.

      thanks.

      by Ajax the Greater on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM PDT

    •  please moderate your tone.

      hillary is a jerk and obama is an ok guy works.

      by GANJA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM PDT

      •  If,,,,

        the comments matched that tone there would not be a problem.

        by Miss Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM PDT

  •  Here's a solution

    Put bonddad's diaries on the front page instead, especially when they're as short as today's.

    by landogriffin on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM PDT

  •  FISA is VERY important

    and tells us something about our Presidential candidates.
    http://www.theseminal.com/...

    Paraphrasing-
    The FISA debate [in the senate] was still going on, and one [presidential] candidate stuck around [the Senate]to continue voting while the other hit the campaign trail again.
    Obama voted with the rest of the Senate Democrats. Hillary Clinton was nowhere to be found. She was informing the nation that she was self-financing her campaign.
    With both candidates campaigning in the DC area for Maryland, DC, and Virginia’s upcoming primary, it is puzzling that Clinton didn’t bother to stand up for a bill that would give her future administration a crack at rewriting FISA.
    In the fight against FISA, Obama, so far, has backed this fight to the fullest; Clinton hasn’t. So, commend Obama for standing up for this issue.  There is nothing stronger in our nation than our Constitution, and there is nothing worse than a government making enemies of its own people. Obama is on the right side of this issue and he’s backing it up with actions, not words.
    Clinton’s support is lukewarm. Once again, her symbolism speaks volumes.
    Senator Clinton, you were elected to serve the American people, and you are running for an office that demands steep sacrifices. Thanks, Senator Obama, for doing your job. This reassures us that you will do your job if elected President.

    by Ma Joad on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM PDT

•  great news

  I'm starting to think we may actually be able to run out the clock on this one.

  by taylormattd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:34 PM PDT

  •  Well, how many times

    Will it get brought up before someone says: hey, we're done.  This has been voted to death and it's not fit for further discussion.  Please move on to the next subject.

    by slippytoad on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19:27 PM PDT

  •  still gotta keep on it

    I don't know congressional procedure, but the next step is either further consideration by the Senate or a House/Senate conference to reconcile the versions of the bill.

    Assuming that the Senate refuses to remove immunity (thanks for nothing, Jay), one wonders whether the House conferees will be strong enough to insist on a conference agreement deleting it.  That'll be the real test.

    by N in Seattle on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM PDT

    •  At least two more perilous steps

      Conference, and the veto.

      Maybe the Democrats will be able to gum it to death, wouldn't that be a switch?

      by lgcap on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM PDT

    •  well

      the House has already survived that once.

      Don't forget, this is the second time the House has passed a bill without immunity, at I think so. If I'm not mistaken, they had already passed one without immunity when the Senate passed Rockerfeller's piece of crap. They managed to avoid a conference wherein telco propoents put the immunity back in, and instead passed this one.

      by taylormattd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM PDT

  •  I'm cautiously optimistic

    If the revisions become law without immunity, then I will apologize and celebrate. This was truly a Phoenix.

    Thank you McJoan!

    PS What happens after the veto?

    by lgcap on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM PDT

    •  We call bush out on helping the terrorists

      because he is blocking legislation that will protect america against them.

      by Ab2kgj on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM PDT

    •  They won't become law...

      Because, ironically, Bush has pledged a veto!

      That's how fucking committed to our security he is.

      If he doesn't get his immunity, then we don't get so-called security. Yay!

      "Are they over here, or over here? Where are those WMD's?"

      It's all a joke, right?

      by MouseOfSuburbia on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:54:37 PM PDT

      •  The problem is they will say...

        he promised the veto BEFORE the bill was passed. So they will turn the security threat back on us for passing something that won't go though.

        I'm afraid with a razor thin margin in the House and big bi-partisan effort in the Senate, this is still going no-where. It's just a feel good for a day thing.

        by snarkthis on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM PDT

      •  Nero Sang While Rome Burned

        Nero sang while Rome burned. Bush singing about his friends breaking the law the other day really pissed me off. Was pissed off already but that put some more frosting on a Napalm cake. Bush and his damm veto and his Republican friends are all going to go down in flames in November.

        Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
        Thomas Paine

        by imicon on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:37:01 PM PDT

•  Now if only Senate Democrats would get a spine...

  by dave1042 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM PDT

  •  Or some principles

    I have to agree with Greenwald that people like Rockefeller and Feinstein are voting as they are out of conviction, not fear.

    by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:55 PM PDT

  •  Doesn't matter in this case...

    It's not about enacting the legislation...refusing to pass anything that includes immunity is the victory.

    by robroser on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM PDT

    •  you said it.

      by HugoDog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17:38 PM PDT

    •  Best argument againts immunity:

      Made by a Republican:

      "There is not one iota of evidence that the companies acted inappropriately whatsoever," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

      Then there's not one iota of reason to need immunity!

      by Red no more on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:23:33 PM PDT

      •  Of course I should add-

        That I don't believe for a minute that nothing illegal occurred!  Bush doth protest waaaay to much - and lie way to much - for me to think that this whole immunity thing is anything but a scam to cover up the administration's illegal acts.

        Let's find out what really happened and hold the traitors to account!

        by Red no more on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM PDT

        •  The other argument that repubs made

          that I think was an argument for our side - if we don't give telecoms immunity, companies won't do this type of thing voluntarily in the future.  I say, good, that's exactly what we need.

          by madgranny on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM PDT

        •  Polosi Has Said That Loud and Clear

          I this quote deserves to be spread around.

          Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three [possible] explanations:

          First, the President knows that it was the Administration's incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in the statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed -- They simply didn't do it right.

          Second, the Administration's legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong;

          or third, public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.

          None of these alternatives is attractive, but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration's insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.

          by JG in MD on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM PDT

          •  Eeeps! Nancy Pelosi. ::JG slaps self::

            by JG in MD on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:39:54 PM PDT

      •  Senator Hagel (R-NE)

        wrote me in response to my email to him that immunity does not protect the telecom companies if they broke the law. But of course that doesn't make any sense because they have nothing to be immune from if they didn't break the law and therefore wouldn't need immunity. Also and most importantly the very difinition of Immunity is

        # Immunity (legal), conferring a status on a person or body that makes that person or body free from otherwise legal obligations such as, for example, liability for damages or punishment for criminal acts.

        I don't know maybe he thinks I am stupid and don't know the meaning of immunity.

        by ryan81 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:39:49 PM PDT

        •  The BS is really deep on this-

          Usually a sign there's some serious people/cash at risk.  Hagel is usually better than that, at least that's my perception after his calling a spade a spade on the Iraq debacle.  Could be wrong...

          by Red no more on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:48:46 PM PDT

          •   I thought that too.

            He seemed (seems) like a reasonable guy, or at least not one of the ultra conservative nutjob neocons. He voted against torture, there is that at least.

            by ryan81 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:50:41 PM PDT

            •  I'm a reasonable guy, too

              And I was a Republican for 29 years.  My ideology hasn't changed that much, but the party sure followed the nutjobs off a cliff.  Now I find myself pretty much at home here...

              by Red no more on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:02:33 PM PDT

          •  ...and smelly, too! <>

            by RUKind on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:18:37 PM PDT

    •  So happy I could cry

      and I did!

      by politicalrunt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM PDT

  •  Is it time for me to start

    Calling Salazar again?

    by nwgates on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM PDT

    •  I'm right behind you

      when you do NW.

      by maizenblue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM PDT

      •  make that three!

        and how many calls did I make before to him on FISA?  at least 6 I think. As my partner says, UFA!!

        by coloradorob on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM PDT

  •  Or just grow "One ball!" as Colbert says.

    by Fireshadow on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM PDT

  •  Amen!

    by phrogge prince on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:54:48 PM PDT

  •  Spine? Gonads? Close enough to St. Paddy's Day...

    ... I'm just doing a jig!

    by dmhlt 66 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:19:36 PM PDT

•  Fantastic...

  Greenwald post here.

  I'm actually starting to get a little excited about this.

  by robroser on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM PDT

  •  The invaluable Greenwald

    Thanks for the link. The money quote:

    It is possible that the House will ultimately end up capitulating to the President, but I have real doubts about whether that will happen. They have defied the standard GOP Terrorism-exploitation attacks for weeks, allowed the Protect America Act to expire (once the President refused to extend it), and now passed a very good bill even in the midst of intense GOP/media attacks. They did so as a result of a shrewd strategy and a willingness to frame and engage the debate aggressively.

    The whole thing is definitely worth reading.

    by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:26:22 PM PDT

    •  This makes me proud. n/t

      by missLotus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:19:11 PM PDT

      •  Mojo galore ...

        on such a happy day.

        by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM PDT

•  Fabulous

  And now it's time to primary the blue dogs with absolutely no spine whatsoever.

  by Miss Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:11:06 PM PDT

•  Ecstatic

  Woohoo! And thanks to you, MC, for your tireless coverage/advocacy on this issue. I can't tell you how many times in the last five months I've written this off as a hopeless cause. But it looks (tentatively) like the good side may prevail on this one after all.

  by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM PDT

•  Finally - some GOOD news! nt

  by seefleur on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM PDT

  •  Supporters need to be thanked because I was

    just told they are getting hammered because they supported this.

    by Los Diablo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19:51 PM PDT

    •  thanking AND donating even as I type this!

      yup, I am that talented...

      by seefleur on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM PDT

    •  Just faxed Barrow in Georgia.

      And thanked him for standing up for the country and our Constitution which is what makes us who we are.  

      But I have to agree that after the conference committee and the veto, this will crumble.  I hate to feel this way though.

      by dogheaven on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:12:32 PM PDT

•  I have got to thank Boswell...

  He angers me so many times that a big thank you now is in order.

  by Los Diablo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:03 PM PDT

  •  I voted for him in the FDL poll...

    simply because he has a strong primary challenger.

    Here's to more primary challenges...

    by robroser on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM PDT

    •  I just got off the phone with his D.C. office

      and they thanked me for thanking him because they are getting a hammered with negative calls because he supported this.

      by Los Diablo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM PDT

    •  I think the only reason Boswell

      caved to voting against immunity was because of Fallon's tough primary challenge. Apparently we can only depend on Boswell to do the right thing when he's up for re-election. That's not good enough. That's why we have to work hard to replace him with Ed Fallon. As a progressive, I know that Fallon will defend our civil liberties no matter what.

      by sarahlane on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM PDT

      •  Which is ok. I will take the vote anyway I can

        and thank Ed if he is the reason.

        by Los Diablo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM PDT

•  Hallelujah

  The blind squirrel done found the ubernut.

  by The Termite on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM PDT

•  Don't you wish

  you could be a fly on the wall in the White House right now?

  by HugoDog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM PDT

  •  No... I wish it

    was already 1/20/09

    by Andrew C White on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:24:05 PM PDT

    •  I wish

      I were a fly on the wall of the White House on Jan 20, 2009. To annoy president Obama as he moves in...

      (On another note, I am glad we have this non-prez-candidate related issue on here. Thanks!)

      by goshzilla on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32:15 PM PDT

      •  And just think how hard it will be for

        the West wing staffers to leave behind only the H 's on the Keyboards.

        by dogheaven on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:14:43 PM PDT

•  And thank you, mcjoan...

  ...for all your hard work in documenting the process thus far, as well as being gracious in your apology.  That's what I call a hard-working and conscientious Democrat.

  by alkatt on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM PDT

  •  Indeed...

    McJoan's coverage of this battle has been outstanding.

    by robroser on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM PDT

•  Shuler?

  Your text says he stuck with the Publicans, but your list says he stuck with us.

  Which is it? Needs fixing.

  by chaboard on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM PDT

  •  Too quick in my cut and paste

    thanks for the heads up.

    by mcjoan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM PDT

  •  Republicans

    by Andrew C White on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM PDT

•  STOP IT!

  Hahahaha OMG that's TWICE today we've done this.

  First you posted the second thread at the same time I posted MY FISA thread, and now I just changed my FISA thread to an action diary telling people to call our senators, and you post this on the front page!

  Get out of my head!

  by indiemcemopants on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM PDT

•  OK

  They got this one - is asking for impeachment now too much?

  by Patriot4peace on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:37 PM PDT

•  Hooray!

  And hooray again!
  And hooray for mcjoan too!
  Thankyou thankyou thankyou!

  by marina on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:59 PM PDT

•  Thank you, mcjoan

  For all your hard work on this.  You and KagroX really whipped us to call, fax, etc.

  And you guys kept us informed.

  w00t!

  by mffarrow on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM PDT

•  Wow, mcjoan...

  You are really a forgiving person.

  I am not so quick to absolve Pelosi and Reid for all of their sins just because of the vote today. They have a long list of things to for which they need to beg forgiveness. Even this bill, while keeping out telecom immunity, makes it easier to for telecoms to fight their cases in court.

  I'll be more forgiving when they defund the war in Iraq; when they pursue more aggressively investigations of BushCo; when they move to impeach, or at least censure this administration.

  by KingOneEye on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM PDT

  •  Carrot and stick

    Most of the time, Dems deserve the stick.

    But right now, it's carrot time.

    by mffarrow on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:16:50 PM PDT

    •  Will it make their eyes bright and shiny?