Congress, FISA, and a chance to Show Leadership

Back in 2006 when asked what the most important thing voters should know about a potential Democratic Majority in the next Congress Nancy Pelosi said "Subpoena Power." Well they've had a year and, so far, the Bush White House has treated those Subpoenas only slightly better than the Charmin in the Longworth House Office Building's restrooms. But the Committee Chairs sure do know how to write stern letters! That'll get 'em! The threat of Impeachment Hearings sure won't. Subpoenas there can't be blocked (see NIXON vs. U.S.) but Nancy obligingly took that off the table. And while Robert Wexler (D - FL) has collected over 200,000 signatures asking for John Conyers to start hearings on the Kuchinich Resolution to impeach Cheney its a foregone conclusion that Pelosi would rather be caught wearing white after Labor Day than oblige her Democratic constituents.

Over in the Senate its even worse. Right now they are looking at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) once again. And, once again, the issue of providing retroactive immunity to the Telecom Companies for going along with warrantless wiretaps in violation of the statute is the principal cause of controversy. Proponents of this measure tell us that it is necessary to protect the "patriotic" Telcos from harrassing lawsuits that would emperil national security and the "Global War on Terror." Funny, but those "patriots" were only too willing to cease the taps when the FBI failed to pay their bills.

(and that failure shows just how concerned the feebs were! No pay No Play! Another triumph of the market in Bushland!)

Once again Harry Reid has brought up the Bill marked up by Jay Rockefeller (recipient of Telco Largess) that would hold them harmless and ignored the stronger bill that came out of Judiciary. And once again Senator Chris Dodd (D - CT) is threatening a filibuster. So far he has a few supporters including Russ Feingold (D - WI) and the three major Democratic candidates for President - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. All have issued statements in support.

That's not good enough.

Sens. Obama and Clinton should return to Washington and help Dodd talk it to death. Their support might get Reid to change his mind and change bills. For Obama its a chance to show that, when tough bills come up, he does more than vote "Present". For Clinton its a chance to shed her image as a cautious "Triangulator" by taking a tough stand that her corporate donors may not approve of. For Edwards who can't vote an announcement that he is going to the Capitol to lobby against the provision and call for a rally this weekend to show solidarity would make the point that he is willing to take a stand, even if it means leaving the campaign trail in South Carolina. For all three it would be a chance to show "Leadership."

And it would excite the base that is growing somewhat disillusioned with the party's shenanigans and with the mudfest going on now in the campaign. Polls, admittedly some from the ACLU, show large majorities of Americans agree with Senator Dodd on this. Leading Bloggers like Jane Hamsher, Christy Hardin Smith and Glenn Greenwald have spent millions of bits writing about this and the reasons for not giving the telcos immunity. But, just as polls show 70 per cent of the public wants out of Iraq while all the candidates seem to want to keep forces there, and just as a majority want hearings on the administration to include the "I" word, a cynicism is setting in. Why bother voting "D" this fall?

The omens - war, economy, competence, health care - certainly favor the Democrats this fall. But that is not enough. Let's show some leadership. Let us take on this crazy policy in the White House to turn us into the "Surveillence State."

Once again good policy would make for good politics.

Comments

[Kevin]

I would be very surprised if either Clinton or Obama goes anywhere near the Senate chamber when Dodd's filibuster is happening.

After all, it takes time away from photo ops on the campaign trail.

[Tambopaxi]

Rich,

This is really good post, and I agree with all of your observations.

Over the last seven-eight years, Democratic leaders like Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Feinstein, etc., seem to have forgotten that they're supposed to be the opposition (and even the conscience of country, but I'm hoping for too much there) in addressing issues like FISA, the Patriot Act, the tax cuts, and of course, Iraq. As you point out, 70% of the country is against Iraq (and should have been from the get-go), and yet these people continue to go along, get along.

The question is, why have Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Feinstein and so on, decided that it's ok to confirm AG's who think water-boarding is cool, decided that they can buy the outright and obvious lies of Bush y cia, decided that a gradual erosion of basic Constitutional rights via FISA and the PA is acceptable?

Whatever answers, I'd propose some sort of national revolt within the Democratic Party with the specific goal of ousting the aforementioned folks and others like them in Congress who seem to be acting like, well, crypto-Republicans (Joe Liebermann led the way on this, of course), for want of a better term. In their actions, after all, they have become so like the supposed minority party that we have no meaningful opposition to, indeed, difference between, these guys and their Republican buddies. The result is that recommendations like yours will never be acted on - unless Obama does something, which is 50-50 possibility at best, I fear.

Still - and fantasizing here at the end, it'd be cool if Obama really did go back and lambast the FISA, and then turn right around and go back to California and whack Clinton with his action; I think he'd get a real boost in our State if he did.