Nancy and Harry -- defend them or damn them?

[lwcon]

A lot of progressives are jumping out of windows over the recent FISA vote.

A majority of Dems voted against the bill, but enough voted "yea" to give Bush and Gonzales broad authority to defy the 1st Amendment.

Here's hoping (and urging) the Blue Dogs et al. who voted for this monstrosity get voted out in the '08 primaries.

But what of the leadership? Does anyone here have expertise on what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could and should have done procedurally to have prevented this vote from happening -- at least kept it from being a late-night clusterfuck that was wide open to Republican gamesmanship?

Have you seen a good article that clearly explains why and how our leaders got rolled on this or (if you swing that way) evidence that they somehow wanted this result?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[babylonsister]

1. This gave me some insight and made my blood boil:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/its-for-our-own-...

When it comes to the encroaching police state, the politicians of both parties have shown their true colors and their shirts are a disturbing shade of coffee.

The idea that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi supposedly "allowed" themselves to be punk'd again on a constitutional atrocity with scare stories and slick legislative strategy is indefensible and at some point you have to assume that it isn't just political malpractice or even spinelessness. When you see this legislation, on the heels of the passage of the Military Commissions atrocity last fall, you cannot escape the conclusion that the Democrats agree with the administration that the government must have unfettered authoritarian power to "keep the country safe."

Sure, a good many of them voted against it. But the Democrats control the agenda now and no legislation passes without the leadership's approval in this congress. They approved it. The pander wasn't to the red staters. It was those who voted against it who were pandering --- to us. If the Dems had wanted to stop Reid and Pelosi from putting this atrocity up for a vote they could have. They didn't.

And not only did they approve it, they refused to pass the bill that everyone agrees was sufficient to update the FISA rules alone and granted the administration its latest power grab instead. What could have been a real debate about who, in fact, is keeping the country safe and free, they turned into a political failure that makes them appear even weaker than before. And in the process of doing this, they were willing to give Alberto Gonzales the power to eavesdrop on his political opponents -- themselves. (Considering what we know about what he and others have done at the DOJ, it's absurd to assume he won't, isn't it?)

The powers that have now been legally invested in the executive branch, the military commissions and this new warrantless wiretapping authority, can be used by anyone. That means that on one level at least, the unitary executive theory has found bipartisan acceptance --- the fourth amendment is as quaint as the Geneva Conventions. Every single vote along these lines that ostensibly are done to "protect" us, is a step toward the authoritarian power that lies at the heart of Dick Cheney's wet dream. This has been done with almost no real debate or discussion, since our representatives have chosen to also codify the ridiculous secretiveness that continues to hold that even though we know what we know about this from the front pages of the New York Times, they still can't discuss it openly. Certainly, they didn't deem to share with us (again) why there was such a rush after years and years of not moving the uncontroversial aspects of this legislation and ramming through yet another constitutional assault in the dead of night.

[lwcon]

4. Technically, is that correct?

"But the Democrats control the agenda now and no legislation passes without the leadership's approval in this congress."

Is it precisely, technically true that Reid and/or Pelosi could have unilaterally prevented this bill from coming to a vote? I don't know, and I think their reputations hang on that detail.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[babylonsister]

7. I can't say for sure, though it makes sense that the majority would set

the agenda. But I can't answer you definitively there. Hopefully someone with some facts will let us know.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Nancy and Harry sold out our liberties to the American tyrant

They deserve the same fate as those Vichy French that were punished for collaborating with the Nazis.

[rodeodance]

2. The Scheduled was a deciding factor (for the worse).

[jgraz]

3. The leaders didn't get rolled, the public did

There were two versions of the House bill: the Democratic version, which only fixed the one "hole" in the FISA law, and the Bush version, which allowed Alberto Gonalez to rummage through your panty drawer.

As you point out in your link above, the House rules were suspended for the Democratic bill in order to require a two-thirds supermajority to pass. The bill actually got a majority of votes, but was defeated due to the rules change.

The ONLY people who can change the rules of the House this was are the leaders of the majority party. The minority has ZERO power in this area.

Still feel like it was Pelosi and Reid who got rolled?

[lwcon]

5. As rodeodance notes...

The Dem leadership got rolled when they got trapped into the midnight-vote madness, which per that openleft article narrowed their procedural options.

Again I ask, did Pelosi and Reid have the option of not letting this bill see the light of midnight? If so, I suggest they got rolled by allowing essential Constitutional matters to be conducted in a fly-by-night fashion.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[jgraz]

6. Yeah, I don't buy that

They took TWO votes. One on the Democratic version that was maneuvered to require a 2/3rd majority. When that failed, they voted in the Bush version with a simple majority (with fewer majority votes than the previous bill).

If they were pressed for time, why the two votes? And why the two different sets of rules?

[lwcon]

8. So, what's your theory (and where's your evidence?)

Nancy and Harry were dying to defile the Constitution this way, so they connived to have this last-minute vote and have the Repubs substitute new language at the last minute. Oh, and to be extra-sneaky, they personally voted against the bill, right?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[jgraz]

9. Sarcastic responses work much better if you actually have some knowledge of the situation

You should familiarize yourself with how Congress actually works, especially wrt the power granted to the majority party under the rules of the House. I don't have time to do your research for you.

[lwcon]

10. The purpose of this thread...

...was to request knowledge from people who might have some to share.

There are plenty of unsupported assertions out there about this topic, and perhaps someone who has done more research than you or I could shed some light on this. Sorry if that idea offends you.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[jgraz]

11. then it's interesting that you're so snotty to those who try to educate you

:shrug:

[lwcon]

14. Please educate away

If you have some solid knowledge of the procedural options and mistakes that led to this bill, please share it.

Perhaps I over-reacted, but I read your "I don't buy it" as rather dismissive of the seemingly plain fact that getting boxed into a last-minute vote was a blatant case of being outplayed.

And, all snark aside, what do you think Nancy and Harry wanted to have happen? Do you sincerely think they wanted this bill?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[jgraz]

16. Never attribute to malice that which can blamed on cowardice

All of these maneuvers make sense if you assume that a) The rethugs had them scared shitless with talk of "gut feelings" and threats to blame the Dems for any new attack and b) Pelosi et al are still operating in a world before "The Internets" where they think they can cover their asses with obscure procedural moves that will be overlooked by the MSM.

Your own link points to how they did it. They wanted to be able to go back home and say they voted FOR national security, but also say that they voted AGAINST the bill * wanted. The Blue Dogs obliged by helping to pass the worst version of the bill and undercutting the Rethugs ability to call the Dems the party of Al-Qaeda.

If you really want proof, call your Congresscritter's office and ask them about this vote. Watch them hem and haw once they realize you actually have the real information on what they did.

[lwcon]

17. The single piece of info I'm most trying to nail down is...

... was it absolutely in their power to have prevented the vote from happening.

IMHO, once they let the vote get on that last-minute schedule, they'd already been gamed and were ripe for more gaming.

That let them get painted into a corner where the weaker-kneed members of the party started finessing their "national security" votes.

As to the "gut feelings," I did see reports that indicated that some Dems were given a glimpse into the supposed root of those concerns, and either through sleight-of-hand or legitimately disturbing reports, they were softened up for the vote.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[jgraz]

18. It certainly was in the House

I don't know enough about the Senate rules to know exactly what the options were there but in the House, the majority party has absolute power to set the agenda.

How many times did the Rethugs get "played" in this way when they ran the House? It just doesn't happen unless the leadership allows it to happen.

[lwcon]

20. If anyone can point me to...

... the laws/rules that spell out the majority party's role in deciding what gets voted on, I'd be much obliged.

Maybe there's a Schoolhouse Rocks video about this I could watch.... ;)

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[lwcon]

19. BTW, I agree with your subject line here

I don't know about never, but generally yes. It's more exciting to believe that there's a cross-party conspiracy -- and I've seen a lot of talk of this sort about -- but all evidence suggests wimpery rather than conspiracy.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[bain_sidhe]

12. "Why the two votes"

I'm not sure about defending Pelosi & Reid overall on this, but I think I know the answer to this question, at least. Bullshit had already threatened to veto the Democratic bill, so they wanted to find out up front if they had the 2/3 majority necessary to override the veto.

At least, I *think* that's why.

[jgraz]

13. If that's true, it was an act of political malpractice

Why not send * the bill and let hom take the heat for being obstructionist? This story is just pathetic no matter how you look at it.

[lwcon]

15. This is what my gut is telling me

That they were scared to go on recess without covering their ass on this suddenly "urgent" legislation.

What I don't understand is how truly possible it was or wasn't for them to keep this off the docket entirely, which plainly they should have done (at least if the alternative to deferring or killing it was a midnight-run switcharoo).

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[onewholaughsatfools]

21. I think you both are missing the point...

bush stated no one is going on vacation till this issue is voted on, which of course he has that power........

[lwcon]

22. Again, I admit my ignorance

Does he actually have that power? Where is it written?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[zulchzulu]

24. Neither Pelosi nor Reid voted for the shameful "Protect America Act"...

...so we should dump them?

They may be leaders in the House and Senate, but they don't do the Vulcan Mind Meld on everybody. Maybe people don't know that. Sorry, it's not a game show.

[lwcon]

25. The question I'm trying to answer is...

... did they have the option of keeping this vote from happening (or at least delaying it until after the recess). If not, there's serious culpability in that, and in the general lack of leadership to keep the weakneed parts of the party in line, or at a minimum to aggressively take a case against this new law to the American people before the vote, thereby pressuring the Blue Dog types to do the right thing.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com