Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Jeb Bush’s Optimism School
Climate Costs ‘May Prove Much Higher’

Paul Robeson: A Life

Truthdig Bazaar
America’s Child

America’s Child

By Susan Sherman

more items

Ear to the Ground

Bush’s Christmas in July: Senate Passes FISA

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 9, 2008
Executive Office of the President of the United States

You know a legislative compromise is one-sided when the AP headline announcing its passage reads “Senate Bows to Bush.” Democratic advocates of the new FISA bill, passed by the Senate on Wednesday, are still trying to explain what they got in exchange for rolling back a few civil liberties and burying some of the president’s abuses. When they figure it out, someone, somewhere, will surely be listening.

Barack Obama took Keith Olbermann’s advice and was one of a minority of senators who voted to strip telecom immunity, but he ultimately voted for the bill.

AP via Google:

Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Inherit The Wind, July 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

ersey girl, July 13 at 6:28 am #

Some of the people on this board remind me of the very people they rail against and despise..right wingers.

That’s not saying much.  Everyone who disagrees with you even on the smallest point gets called an imperialist right-winger by you.  You think anyone who doesn’t march lock-step ditto-head-fashion with your own absurdity MUST be a right-winger, an imperialist and a fascist.

In fact, Jersey Girl, you are so predictable in your responses and abuse that you are totally boring.  You could just phone it in an nobody would ever notice…..

Report this

By jersey girl, July 13, 2008 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

beerdoctor: I couldn’t agree with you more.  Some of the people on this board remind me of the very people they rail against and despise..right wingers.  Just as the right wingers will defend their candidate right or wrong, that’s what they are doing.  They have joined their candidate in throwing progressives who haven’t fallen under his spell, under the bus. You know true progressives who know elections are basically meaningless since both parties are two sides of the same coin. 

They haven’t figured that out yet because they are stuck in their old school thinking. They reall believe the democrats will save them and the country.  They need to think again.  As the 2006 congress has proved.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 13, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

ALso: those clips reminded me of these two mtv ads I saw on youtube a few months ago. Which I’m sure many of you have also seen.

It’s obviously going to happen and soon and they are warning us in not so subtle ways.  At least for those who have been paying attention to what’s going on since 9/11. Question is… why did mtv run those ads? Check them out, they will send chills down your spine.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 13, 2008 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

jersey girl, thank you for your response. Yes my dad’s heart was broken, and yes he saw the anti-Goldwater, little girl with the flower, right before the H-bomb television commercial, that ran only once on network television (they had media savvy blokes in those days too). Dad was an advocate for civil rights, so it is difficult to fathom what he thought, when Martin Luther King Jr. being attacked by his country’s own government for speaking out against the Vietnam fiasco. Which was at Riverside church in New York, a speech that Barack Obama has (in my opinion) shamelessly misappropriated for his own political ends. For example, the fierce urgency now to add an additional 65,000 soldiers?
You see Jersey Girl, there is a kind of historical obscenity taking place. What were once very potent reminders of people struggling for their rights have been sanitized so the status quo can feel comfortable being the practicing happy hypocrites that they are.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 13, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, Cyrenna thank you for your responses. But both of you assume that I will vote for someone else, which is what political horse racing types always assume. In that, both of you are wrong. The thing about voting is, that it is a civic responsibility that should be taken seriously. And since you choose to participate in a totally corrupt system that does not have a “none of the above” check off box, why in the world do I have to worry about that? I said sarcastically at one point, go ahead and let him become president, I meant it, just without my assistance. The same goes for Senator McCain. I do not know if you notice but I do not and never will assume the team mentality that seems so vitally important to those emerged in political struggles. If you do not like stinging satire, just don’t look at my stuff.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 13, 2008 at 6:51 am Link to this comment

Speaking of elections.  I have felt that we probably won’t even have them this year.  They will be called off by our DICKtator president.  I received something in my email this morning from a friend which may bear that out.  First youtube vid is of the house discussing holding a “secret” meeting back in march.  Kucinich is seen in the beginning refusing to participate.  The others argue about the merits of it. The second clip is that of a radio talk show host this past week discussing what went on at that meeting.  Apparently, what they were discussing was prepartion for martial law by the end of the year.  Now I’m sure many of you know about the drills the military has conducted over the past year.  Supposedly to prepare us for some sort of “terrrorist invasion” yea right. No no no, it’s to acclimate us to such treatment when the hammer comes down. Therefore we will follow like docile little lambs to the fema camps. 

Here are the links.. congress first, talk show host second

Report this

By jersey girl, July 13, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

beerdoctor: It wasn’t our father’s fault.  Those times in politics were a little more “innocent”.  People tended to trust their leaders more back then. 

Today we have the internet.  It’s too easy to find out what a candidate has said or done in the past and to call them on it. It’s much easier to make a really educated choice today.

Having said that,many people are still swayed by the cult of personality and what the main scream media throws their way.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 13, 2008 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

No doubt LBJ broke faith.  But Goldwater was ready to nuke North Viet Nam.  The wise Barry Goldwater of 20 years later had not yet been “born”—where Goldwater actually distilled his Conservatism into a consistent TRULY Conservative philosophy—one that started by conserving the Constitution (Goldwater’s consistency led him to oppose the anti-abortion amendment proposals and accept that gays’ actions shouldn’t be criminal—consenting adults).

Still, I remember my mom in early 1964 saying she had real problems voting for LBJ (I was 8 going on 9) and my older brother, at the advanced age of 13 asked her “But what if Goldwater gets the nomination?” and she said then she’d have to vote for LBJ.

But nothing is black and white.

If Goldwater had been elected the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act would NEVER have happened and Thurgood Marshall would never have been on the Supreme Court.  Johnson burned almost every chit he ever held to achieve those three glorious actions—when the Democratic Party in both houses was controlled by racist Southern Dixiecrats who wanted segregation to go on forever.

The so-called “liberal” wing of the Supreme Court is much, much older than the fascist—-oops (my bad)—“conservative” wing—and the swing vote, Kennedy is old too.  The next president will almost certainly name Stevens’s successor who is 88.  Ginzburg is not too healthy, and Souter and Breyer are aging. 


So go ahead and vote for Nader or Barr or whoever.  When McSame names the justice that ends American Democracy forever, you can rest smug and assured that you voted your “conscience”.

Report this

By cyrena, July 13, 2008 at 4:39 am Link to this comment

A reply/question with all due respect for the beerdoctor Part 1 of 2

•  “..For my part, this is based upon what happened to my late father in the 1964 election. I watched my dad worry about the Vietnam war very early. He voted for President Johnson that year because he hinted in August, out on the campaign stump, he would have the troops back home within a year. My dad voted for him on this faith. Well the rest they say is history. My dad was a man of existential conscience, and for the rest of his live he felt betrayed and broken hearted, and worse, partially responsible for the deaths of all those on both sides of that insane conflict…”


I very much appreciate and respect the sentiment that you share here, in regards to your father. I respect it as an INDIVIDUAL sentiment, because all INDIVDUALS deserve the respect that we should have for each other.

Sadly, this doesn’t really square with the rest of your comments on this board. In other words, it’s inconsistent with your other comments, and therefore tends to ring as disingenuous. More to the point though, it is an indication of putting the personal over the common good. You said that your dad felt betrayed and broken hearted, and even partially responsible for the deaths on both sides of that horrible conflict. And, while you might call it a matter of existential conscience, others might call it a self-indulging arrogance or self- pity, because your dad was no more ‘responsible’ for those deaths than was any single other person, unless you want to single out Lyndon Johnson himself. HE can be blamed for that decision, but to claim responsibility because one voted for him is…well, self-serving, and even has a tinge of arrogance to it.

What would speak to some measure of heroism and courage would be the millions of people who clearly demonstrated against that Vietnam war, despite the fact that THEY TOO, may have voted for Johnson at the same time, based on the same faith. There is ALWAYS a risk in absolutely anything that any of us do. Not taking the risk yields nothing. Making a decision, and doing what is collectively or individually necessary to CORRECT what might turn out to be bad or otherwise wrong decisions in hindsight, is what a conscientious person does. To wallow in the mistakes of others or even ourselves, and do nothing to correct them, isn’t much of anything at all.

So, while we can claim to ‘vote our conscience’, in reality, that too is self-serving. I suspect that you know that. It’s self-serving in the exact same way that it was self-serving for ANYONE to vote for Dick Cheney’s regime, AT LEAST THE SECOND TIME, when it had already been proven that the regime was a destroyer of life and stability both here at home, and around the globe as well. And yet, enough people did, Obviously, they were serving not the interests of the common good, or even the least bit concerned about the destroyed lives. I mean really. By 2004, the war was already in full fledged destructive mode, and it was OBVIOUS that there were no plans to ever leave least not from this regime. So, what would your father have done? Would he have voted for Nader ‘on faith’ that somehow, he could be more believed than John Kerry in promises to end that conflict? How about you? How seriously did YOU take your last two presidential votes?

Report this

By cyrena, July 13, 2008 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 for the beerdoctor.

Did you, as a matter of this ‘conscience’ -  vote for Ralph Nader? If so, what did he tell you in regards to the Iraq war, that you ‘took on faith’? Did he say that HE would end the atrocity immediately, and did he explain how he planned to do it? And if so, why did you believe HIM, more than you believed John Kerry/John Edwards?

Did you consider the possible fall-out of voting for an individual who was not going to win? Did your ‘conscience’ feel OK that even though the votes accrued by Nader most likely came from those who would have otherwise voted for Gore or Kerry, thereby assuring 8 years of the worst disaster this nation has ever experienced, somehow make it OK? 

These are ONLY ‘thought’ questions beerdoctor, because I’m *not* trying to give you a hard time. I’m genuinely not. Rather, I’m just trying my best to understand the rationale of ANYONE who would claim to ‘vote their conscience’ when they know that the collective realistic outcome of that is more destruction. And I ask that with all of the seriousness and due respect in me. I just would very much like to understand how any person ‘of conscience’ can reconcile such realities and consequences with any standard understanding of ‘conscience’.

And I would like to know why you refuse to believe that Barack Obama will follow thru with his commitment to bring our troops home from Iraq? Is it just because Lyndon Johnson didn’t follow up on what he ‘hinted’ to your dad back in 1964? Or is there some other reason entirely? I ask because your numerous previous posts suggest that this has nothing to do with your animosity toward Barack Obama. And if that’s the case, then we wouldn’t even need to consider your dad’s story of his fateful vote, or how it has affected your own decisions now.

And with that question in mind, is it then simply better to vote for John McCain, simply because you ‘know’ that he will NOT bring our troops home, and will continue the hegemony by military force that is THE hallmark of the US ideology for the past 4 decades? That’s what it sounds like, but I’d be honored to have you explain it for yourself.

Report this

By cyrena, July 13, 2008 at 2:45 am Link to this comment

Oh and Cyrena has posted too.

As much as I try, it’s hard to avoid seeing her posts. I can tell she never attended a creative writing course.  Short and to the point are the most effective ways to communicate.  Her diatribes are million word posts. Damn, I wonder if she’s got callouses on her fingers? Anyway, not reading her either. Too bad I have to trip over her remarks to get to the good stuff.


Well for the first time ever, Jersey the pit bull girl has brought a chuckle.

I never ‘attended’ a CREATIVE writing course. Too funny. Actually, I have….since I hold an advanced degree that requires it. However, CREATIVE writing is *not* what politics is about, even if Karl Rove DID tell you that you could CREATE your own reality. And, I’m not the least bit surprised that only the really short single-syllable words with very short sentences are the most you and your ilk can digest.  Did you take your ‘creative writing course’ on the same Saturday that you did the flower arrangement session?

Yes, short and mindless, repetitive buzz words are indeed the way for morons to communicate with each other.

Anyway, here’s a tip Jersey pit bull, that absolutely even the dumbest among us can manage. I’ll explain in short sentences. Take the mouse of your computer. Put the cursor on the scroll bar. Press or click on that, and zoom right by any post that has my name on it. If you still trip, then you’re as clumsy as you are stupid, and I can’t much help you with that.

Meantime, could you take the next on-line course in your creative writing session? This stuff that you’ve CREATED is getting really, really, old. It’s just the same CREATED shit, over and over again.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 13, 2008 at 2:15 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, if you think presenting contradicting facts to someone’s alleged positions is being self-righteous, so be it. But it is also foolish to think you are going to get your candidate elected by verbally strong arming those who disagree. You see, some take their vote more seriously than for it to be merely an exercise of a horse race. For my part, this is based upon what happened to my late father in the 1964 election. As a kid I watched my dad worry about the Vietnam war very early. He voted for President Johnson that year because he hinted in August, out on the campaign stump, he would have the troops back home within a year. My dad voted for him on this faith. Well the rest they say is history. My dad was a man of existential conscience, and for the rest of his live he felt betrayed and broken hearted, and worse, partially responsible for the deaths of all those on both sides of that insane conflict.
So please understand that is why I take voting for president very seriously. You can claim that is being self righteous, that is debatable. What I will not be is cavalier about exercising a solemn democratic responsibility. The lives of my fellow human beings are in the balance. My only prayer is thank you. Peace.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 12, 2008 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

JBlack, July 12 at 6:43 am #

Inherit The Wind, You’ll be doing the heavy lifting and dirty work to save the United States? How? By sitting on your butt, reading from the internet and
sharing every odd conspiracy you find and reporting back to this site?

A bit full of ourselves, are we?

Not as much as self-righteous clowns like you, Jerseygirl and TheBeerDoctor.

Anyone who agrees with bigot Cyrena is whacked.

Usually I don’t agree with Cyrena.  This is one of those EXTREMELY rare times I agree with her: Hold your nose and vote for Obama.  Bitch at him about this insane FISA vote and MAKE him admit it was the wrong thing to do.

After 8 years of “I’m NEVER wrong” “Decider” Bush, it would be refreshing for someone with intelligence enough to admit error—and LEARN FROM IT!!!!!!

Most of you here are far left-wing nutjobs whom very few even pay attention to. Speak that crap in public and watch the eyes roll.

Would you make up your minds? Am I a Left Wing Nut Job or a Right Wing Nut? (Hint: I don’t wear a tin-foil hat).

I come here to laugh mostly…... And if ignorance is bliss you mist be one calm individual…LOL

I wish I was.  I can never understand how analysis of facts that YOU disagree with MUST mean ignorance. It’s like those Jehovah’s Witnesses and Orthodox rabinical students who always end up saying “well, if you studied my bible more you’d understand.”

One thing we have in common—I’m LOL. In fact, I’m ROFLMAO!

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 12, 2008 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

Re: The Faux Obama
Just a brief technical note. Much of the text used for this “recruitment” add were taken directly from Obama’s campaign site, including the bit about agility and lethality for conventional wars and such. And yes, “backbone of our ability to extend global power” is a direct quote.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 12, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

scott: Oh. ok then.. nevermind. I don’t want to be a part of Obama’s army. I’m leaving now.

  Wait…who are all those people blocking the doors?  Excuse me, I need to go..what do you mean, I can’t leave?  What is wrong with you people? Let me go… Stop, you’re scaring me…What’s wrong with your eyes….......oh my god…. nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!!


Report this

By jersey girl, July 12, 2008 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

But Mr Faux Obama supporter recruiter.. how will I know if the war President Obama is sending me to is the “right war” at the “right time?”

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 12, 2008 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

I am a faux Obama supporter and I approved this message.

Young people, have you been having a hard time lately figuring out which way is up? Well perhaps you should consider joining the military. Senator Obama says he needs 65,000 more soldiers, and 27,000 more marines. You see the Senator who just may very well be your next President wants to revive an ethic of public service. Worried about being blown up? Put your fears at rest. Senator, excuse me, President Obama will make sure you are reequipped properly. No more stop loss… your deployment will be predictable. If you have a beef with somebody down the line, in the chain of command, do not worry. Barack Obama is going to set up a Military Families Advisory Board, to act as a conduit for military family concerns.
Worried about guns? Don’t worry, Barack will make sure that forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter insurgency operations.
Hey, you say: what about air power. Make no mistake, this Illinois Killjoy has made it clear that we must preserve our unparalleled air power capabilities, swiftly responding to crises across the globe. BHO is your man if you want greater investment in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, while maintaining C-17 and KC-X support, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.
So what’s it going to be kids? Your President to be wants to know what you can for the country. Here, sign on the dotted line…

Report this

By jersey girl, July 12, 2008 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

scottk:  Thanks for the backup.  And by the way, it is so comforting to know that there are people like you and others on here who do not fall for the fox tv like hype that the obamatons and their ilk are pushing.  Free thinkers are so rare these days.

I see Inherit has posted about me. Don’t care, don’t wanna know. He’s already made his point about me.

Oh and Cyrena has posted too.  As much as I try, it’s hard to avoid seeing her posts. I can tell she never attended a creative writing course.  Short and to the point are the most effective ways to communicate.  Her diatribes are million word posts. Damn, I wonder if she’s got callouses on her fingers? Anyway, not reading her either. Too bad I have to trip over her remarks to get to the good stuff.

Have a good weekend scott smile

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 12, 2008 at 5:23 am Link to this comment

Well I said I would never respond to cyrenna, but since I got this giant (potato) chip on my shoulder (is it Grippo’s barbeque?) I will give it a try. First off, I did not return because of anyone’s encouragement. What I said about your emotional bullying I stand by. Just take off your assumed mask and dispassionately look at your most recent post and I think you will notice the emotional screed of someone who must not have very much going on. Oh excuse me, my shoulder chip? I think I’ll change that to a chocolate chip cookie… homer, ummm, cookie good.
I got to admit there is some fascination in watching you and Jersey Girl engage in your political cat fight. You are hilarious when you and her put into caps TO MAKE YOUR POINTS. But for someone who is my age, can you not see that typing CAN NEVER WIN, cheapens the whole democratic process, making the entire election a stupid horse race, as if winning is was what voting is all about.
By the way, I do not despise Barack Obama, which is your convenient way to dismiss anyone who questions his validity as a candidate for peace and justice.
Please continue. I read your stuff. Although I must admit, I read it with ironic detachment. Thank You is my only prayer. The Beer Doctor
Oh by the way, I bet you will dismiss everything I have said. I am almost counting on it. That’s the poker chip on my shoulder.

Report this

By cyrena, July 12, 2008 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

re: Inherit The Wind, #168598 1 of 3

Amen CY…arrogance is only the half of it, and probably a cover for a bunch of insecurity.

Ya know what just really gets my gall about these ignoramuses, like the jersey girl and the beer doctor, is that they will probably be the ones whose stupid asses will be saved, despite their own juvenile ignorance, of the never ending “ME’ generation.

It’s all about ‘me’ and of course what she calls sarcasm is UNPROVOKED harassment and personal attacks. If I didn’t have a bunch of far more important things to do, I’d follow through on the legality of all of this stuff, based on the comment policy, and the terms and conditions for this site. Maybe give her some free education on the consequences of one acting out in a civilized society. The thing is, at some point, they’ll disappear, and for the time being at least, the appalling hostility of these posts and the serious neurosis that it displays, is actually helpful to a project that I’m doing.

Now, that may seem selfish, because it would seem like Truthdig would be concerned about the loss of so much other SANE comment traffic, that has resulted from these types of posts from people like Jersey Girl. The Beer doctor was slightly less harmful and hostile at the beginning, preferring more to simply rant and rave about how Obama was responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the world. He had slightly more reason, but now he’s got a chip on his shoulder as well, because I called him out for the same emotional and irrational comments. So he wined and all because his feelings were hurt, and said he just wasn’t gonna be where he wasn’t wanted. That was stupid, because one needs a thicker skin these days. So he disappeared and only showed back up when loudmouth arrogance here gave him the courage prompt. Just like little kids.

I’m generally patient enough with folks at the onset, willing to provide them with the benefit of the doubt. The Beer Doctor started out reasonable enough, but then started to freak out completely as Obama gained more momentum from the grassroots and onto the main stream. Then he just lost it. The thing with these people is that they figure they can say anything they want, to anybody, no matter how offensive, and…more importantly, NO MATTER HOW UNTRUTHFUL,.as in BALDFACED LIES, and then when someone calls them out on the lies, they have the nerve to wanna get an attitude even worse than the one they started out with! Then of course, it becomes the ‘other person’s’ problem. Then it’s always somebody else’s fault for reacting to their offensive behavior to begin with. The ‘dish it out but can’t take it’ folks.

That’s far more the case with Jersey Girl, and most people I know would sum it up quite easily…IGNORANT! As in, just don’t know any better. Something happened in the socializing process. So they shoot off their mouths because they’ve finally found a place that will allow for it, and then when somebody calls attention to their ignorant statements, that person becomes the ‘arrogant’ one. Typical bush-repug type behavior. I swear. That’s exactly why I called her out as the bully that she is…abrasive, angry at the world, and taking it out on anybody she can. Like, the world OWES her something. That’s why she can’t LEARN anything from anywhere. Stupid people like that can never learn, because they’re too busy trying to prove that they already ‘know it all’ when the wiser among us understand perfectly that NOBODY ‘knows it all.”

A SMART person would engage with people when new information comes to them, and be grateful for the opportunity. It’s only these types that feel like they’ve got something to prove who won’t, because there is absolutely ZERO concept of humility, or even the slightest understanding of common or mutual respect. They can’t possibly understand such a concept, because they have ZERO respect for themselves.

Report this

By cyrena, July 12, 2008 at 4:02 am Link to this comment

2 of 3
So Juvenile Jersey Girl, who once stamped her feet and whined and promised that she wasn’t going to post here any longer, was back in a day. I knew she was lying then too. These people crave attention and have this need to push their mentality on anyone they can, and it’s always, always, always, negative. I’ve yet to see her, or troublesum, (though I won’t put this on the Beer doc) say a decent thing about anyone or anything. Not even Nadar or McKinney. Instead, she just demands that everybody vote for them, because of her extreme hate for Obama. She never says what either of them have to offer, (again…the ignorance) but only that ‘we’ need to vote for someone who represents ‘our’ interests, and assumes that can’t possibly be Obama, because SHE doesn’t like him. Like I said, a bitter, angry, and resentful person without a soul..and it’s all about her

It’s obvious how totally irrational she is, because of what reasonably intelligent people know the stakes are, if McCain were to be elected. Her response to that, is that if McCain is elected, it will be because “Obama blew it.” Now I know an emotionally unstable and psychologically compromised person when I hear from them. At the very BEST, that is her problem, and I say at the very ‘best’, because that may not be entirely her own fault. (like she could be bi-polar or schitzo like so many of these other folks these days). We do know she is totally without any self-control or LOGIC. It’s only about emotions she can’t keep under control.

Be that as it may, STRANGERS aren’t gonna put up with that shit for long. So at some point in time, when it becomes more obvious to the folks at truthdig, (which usually means bringing it to their attention) that this is yet another one of these posters (or even trolls) who have managed to run off a lot of other traffic, they’ll simply censor her ass, because we know they’ve done it before.

So yeah, we WOULD be the ones filling the sandbags. But if I had anyway of knowing that she was one of the ‘victims’, she would just remain a victim. My patience for these kinds of people has become very limited over time, if only because they actually DO HARM. If times weren’t as critical as they are for ALL of us, I’d blow it off. But she’s dangerous. That’s not to say that she’s the ONLY one. There are others. She’s just the most annoying at the moment.

Now she won’t take any of this and even bother to examine some of it as possible truth. That’s the pity. None of us are perfect, least of all me. But in the past, when somebody (at least someone seemingly sane themselves) calls me on something that I’ve said or done, I might not LIKE it at all. But I’ll certainly consider it, and acknowledge it when I should. Jersey Girl isn’t capable of that. She just has to keep up the insults, and be the biggest and loudest of the know-it-alls around.

And, she won’t read any of this, because according to her, it’s just more of my long-ass BORING stuff. Funny. It’s all about HER, so you wouldn’t think she’d be bored. Now of course if it was all about Obama, she’s hang on every word. Almost sounds like a woman scorned.

Same with troublesum. Notice how they gain courage from each other, primarily to attack ME. They’re obsessed with me. Sorry girls, I’m not into that. I like guys. As for ‘spinning’ the vote that Obama made, I have absolutely no intentions of doing that, because I don’t ‘spin’ anything.

Report this

By cyrena, July 12, 2008 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

Part 3 of 3 ITW #168598

I’ve already written (and I’m sure you’ve taken note) that I’m disappointed and annoyed with Obama for voting for it, because he didn’t have to, and shouldn’t have. And yes, I did expect something different. I assume that HE has reasons that I can only guess at. I just won’t buy the rest of the smear package that you all have been trying to sell, just because of this one bad move on his part. I think we need to make it clear that we expect more of him, but at the same time, I don’t believe anybody who was initially planning to support him, and has changed their minds because of this one issue, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT COULD PUT MCCAIN IN THE OFFICE, is even thinking rationally.

In short, for anyone who claims that they will vote for Nader, WHO CANNOT WIN, or write in someone else, WHO CANNOT WIN, and run the risk of another 4 to 8 years of McCain, is simply insane themselves. It means that they can’t possibly be thinking, with any measure of clarity. So, that’s just a fair warning to those of you who refuse to use any kind of logic in figuring out what the outcome would be. Depraved people like troublesum and Jersey Girl will be delighted, until all of their government assistance is cut off, and they’re out in the street trying to sell bad tricks.  But you people can’t possibly imagine the terror you’ll get from McCain, while you supposedly ‘vote your conscience’.

As for Hillary the hypocrite voting no, I’ll say this again…Hillary is a snake. She managed to AVOID voting AT ALL, when this same legislation was introduced twice before. She was the ONLY presidential candidate who slithered her fat ass out of casting a vote back in February, because she was still in the race, and not sure who to pander to. Phony, gutless ‘wonder’ that she is, she just didn’t vote.

It’s NOT like this just came up. This has been the most contentious battle in this spineless Congress, for well over a year, even though it SHOULD be focused on stopping all of the imperial destruction of the Middle East. Maybe if you all would actually do something about the fundamental problem, you wouldn’t have all of these concerns about your civil liberties. Why no uproar before now?  How come nobody wants to call GW out for creating his phony ‘war on terror’ to begin with, which is exactly how this illegal spying came into effect.? How is it that nobody is talking about Mukasey’s testimony today, claiming that NO ONE in the Administration should be held accountable for giving the orders to practice torture, which happens to be the most serious of crimes against humanity, along with the consistent killing of innocent civilians?

Well, as bad as this spying legislation is, do you really think that the next 6 months until it can be corrected (and it won’t be by a McCain) is so much worse than 4-8 years of a completely fascist existence? Now this spying has been going on since Dick Bush took office. And from 2001 to 2005, when Obama got to the Senate, not a damn other person did a thing about it. No, that doesn’t ‘let him off the hook’. It does mean that your grievances seem a tad bit suspect at this point in time.

And…it continues..McCain will keep it up.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 11, 2008 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

jersey girl, July 11 at 2:20 pm #

Inherit:  You seem to have arrogance and sarcasm confused.  Cyrena is arrogant, I am sarcastic smile
Cyrena thinks she is holier than thou..havent you noticed?  I guess not. You’re both too busy wandering around in the heady fog of obama worship.


You could work for Fox Noise—you make up crap and then act like it’s the truth.  I’ve read your posts…You know all the answers whether they work or not and anyone who disagrees with you is an imperialist fascist.  Lady, that’s arrogance, not sarcasm.

Also, I don’t think you’ve been reading either—most people wouldn’t say being disappointed with someone is the same thing as “wandering around in the heady fog of obama worship.”  Unless, of course, you are DELIBERATELY creating falsehoods (like Fox) to make your point.

Now let’s talk about not “getting” sarcasm:
I don’t give a damn whether my efforts (and the efforts of 10s of milliions like me) save you from a fascist destruction of America—just whether they save me and mine from it.  If you are lucky enough to be saved, I know you are too twisted and wrapped up in old 1960’s radical Leftist thinking to appreciate it.  Of course, if we fail, when the REAL fascists get hold of you you’ll be whining “It’s not fair!”

Damn right it’s not. I don’t want to live in a US modeled on Hugo Chavez or the Taliban. That’s where Bush is taking us, in case you didn’t notice while you were pontificating on how there’s no difference between Obama and McCain. 

We heard that shit in 2000 and the result was the most stolen elections since 1876, the biggest loss of rights since the Japanese Internment, the biggest collapse of the economy since the Depression, the biggest foreign screwup since Viet Nam, and the most un-American Supreme Court since Plessey vs Ferguson.

And there’s more to come, especially if Darth Cheney gets his war with Iran, a war that doesn’t have to be.

I live in NJ too.  Since I came here 15 years ago I am convinced there must be lead in the water because I’ve never seen so many people act so demented—in their cars and in their lives.

BTW, I saw you praised Sen.Lautenberg—one of the 3 critical votes that confirmed Clarence Thomas and cursed us with HIS ditto-vote.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 11, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

Inherit:  You seem to have arrogance and sarcasm confused.  Cyrena is arrogant, I am sarcastic smile
Cyrena thinks she is holier than thou..havent you noticed?  I guess not. You’re both too busy wandering around in the heady fog of obama worship.

So you and cyrena are gonna save us from the sinking ship? Please, just worry about saving yourselves. When your Obama is president and he’s busy invading countries for israel and he doesn’t restore the bill of rights and all civil liberties and uses the new “spy on your neighbor law “, that he just voted for, to catch those nasty terrorists he’s so fond of mentioning all the time, which btw may include your quite innocent uncle bob in that at&t;spiders web of tyranny, you’re gonna drown in your own tears for not seeing him for what he was BEFORE you voted him in office.

NADER FOR PRESIDENT..change you can believe in

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

“people like Cyrena and me will be filling the sandbags to prevent America from being flooded by fascists.” Really? I was unaware. I thought that the pomp and pageantry of a presidential election had only slightly less gravitas than American Idol. Who could have known?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

Jersey Girl:

Yeah, you’re arrogant—just so I can remove any doubt. Go, vote for Nader.  Feel superior while you’re doing it. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.

While your building your summer cabana, pontificating on your nice swim, people like Cyrena and me will be filling the sandbags to prevent America from being flooded by the fascists.  We’ll being protecting you, too, though we can’t help that, and you can’t figure out, that’s what’s coming.

So, to use another metaphor, while you’ll be busy doing the dainty work rearranging the deck chairs, we’ll be doing the dirty work, the heavy lifting making sure the ship doesn’t sink and George Mussolini doesn’t get his 3rd term.

Report this

By Sue Cook, July 11, 2008 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

Obama just added to his list of contributors millionaire bundler Edward Lamont whose business is in Telecommunications donating big money to his campaign.

Money can sway ones vote if large enough. Something I thought Obama was boasting staying clear of with his “hope and change” tour?

Report this

By cyrena, July 11, 2008 at 3:58 am Link to this comment

Re: Jim De Vries, July 10

“Anyone notice that McSame did NOT vote on this FISA thing?”

I did. And interestingly neither did Ron Paul which says a mouthful about the two.

I noticed as well. McSame was in Columbia collaborating with the regime’s ‘allies’. Funny thing about mr. libertarian/protector of the constitution ron paul. Same with Sen. Hillary Clinton the first two times this was voted on in the Congress. Conveniently absent. Americans have short memories.

The lawsuit launched by the ACLU and The Nation is now posted on the TD site. It sounds hopeful, based on the portions available to read. At least it defines the defendants, so we now know that much. Sorry, Obama isn’t named.

I agree with Outraged that Obama has for the most part, remained mostly close to center during the primaries. I disagree entirely that he has ‘moved right’. Again, all things are revealed in time.

It’s amazing that anyone can or would suggest that Ralph Nader has been thoroughly vetted. He hasn’t. He’s only been vetted relative to the age of the constituency, because he only shows up every 4 years to run for president. Anyone younger than the age of 30 or 35 therefore knows next to nothing about him. That is particularly the case in my own area of the country. He also hasn’t made any efforts to campaign to the extent that he COULD introduce himself to the electorate. I can’t say that I blame him. He’s old, (way older than me even) and there’s no way I could manage the energy that Barack Obama has put into getting to each and every state of this country during his campaign, while still attempting to hold down his responsibilities as a US senator.

Ralph Nader is a respected…lawyer, scholar, political activist, author, and professor of History and Government. He’s never held public office. Barack Obama is a, scholar, political activist.  Author, and professor of Constitutional Law, or assistant professor,  whatever you wanna call him, since that seems to be such a source of petty contention for the petty minded. Same stuff. Ralph Nader is an Arab-American and a Moronite Catholic. Barack Obama is of mixed African and Caucasian parentage, both of whom were more atheists than anything else. Obama is now a Christian. Both are alumni of Harvard University. Nader’s proclaimed political party is Independent, with non-member affiliations to the Green and Reform parties. Obama..not so exotic. Just a Democrat of the progressive persuasion. Nader is 74 years of age, and Obama is 46.

If age and experience count for anything, (and I believe that they do with both of these men) than Nader has that much of an edge over Barack Obama. That’s it, and that too…is relative.

I never heard of Barr until he showed up on the what..libertarian ticket?

Vetted? I disagree. GWB was not ‘vetted’ and in my own scope, neither is Bob Barr. Nader is only partially vetted, as a result of this being his 5th US presidential election. Things change over a period of 20 years, and he hasn’t updated his resume. Or, at least I haven’t seen an updated copy.

Yep…I did visit his website. It didn’t provide any updates.

The letter from Chris Dodd is appreciated. From what some of the MSM is saying today, he is a potential candidate for Obama’s VP. I hope that he will become exactly that.

Like most Americans, I’m hoping for some stability in and from our new administration. 8 years of intentional chaos has taken it’s toll. And yes, the chaos is very intentional. It is designed to maintain this very instability that we’ve lived with and died from in these past 8 years. It’s the only way such a regime could maintain this control.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 11, 2008 at 3:57 am Link to this comment

Inherit: I’m arrogant and cyrena isnt?  LOL

Report this

By cyrena, July 11, 2008 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

Re: Inherit The Wind, July 10 at 6:39 pm

Well said Inherit the Wind, and I salute you and I thank you.  I absolutely could NOT have said it better…ever.

Respectfully as always…


Report this

By jersey girl, July 11, 2008 at 2:16 am Link to this comment

Outraged:  Nader in my opinion is fully vetted, we know who Nader is, he’s proved himself time and again.  He also fully understands politics and the dirty pool that’s going on.  If we ALL switch….hey…landslides happen. “

This is what I’ve been saying along. If we all decided to stand our progressive ground and switch to Nader there would be a revolution happening in this country that is desperately needed.  If that makes me a “right winger” than I say guilty as charged.

Inherit:  If you feel guilty about defending your choice for president that’s your problem.  I’ve said all along vote your conscience. However, I don’t think that’s what some are doing. I think they are voting out of fear instead of conviction.  That to me is dangerous. 


Report this

By samosamo, July 10, 2008 at 10:57 pm Link to this comment

Unfortunately, IF nader were elected president, I think he would have a better chance of being shot than obama would. There are evil people still pulling most of the strings and they will not tolerate any one, black, white or female, trying to set up a more fair and regulated system. And it would be made to appear as if some half nut of a radical did the job.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, July 10, 2008 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment


Your quote: “But your slam of her HERE is bullshit.  She’s not defending Obama’s vote on FISA—like me, she finds it inexplicable. 

What Cyrena DOES say, is that she STILL has no choice but to vote for Barack Obama.  I feel the same.  Any excitement I felt for him, and I felt a lot, has dissipated.”

>I agree.  Thank you for saying so.  It’s one thing to argue, even heatedly but this has moved to pure nastiness.  Which, like before, (during the Obama/Clinton tirades) makes you feel as though “the nasties” aren’t really for Nader at all but are right-wingers or something just as bad… whatever that might be.

I understand the conundrum concerning Obama, however there has to be a breaking point and for me that breaking point was the conglomeration of the AIPAC issue, the Faith-based “proclamation”, the FISA vote and Obama’s touting of the slashing of social safety nets. His stance on these issues are not centrist, they are neoconservative.  There was the NAFTA flap early on also but it was hard to determine how valid it was, at least at the time. Since though, Obama has taken a more neocon stance on this issue also.

So, the issue isn’t whether Obama has become too centrist for “liberals”.  Obama WAS centrist throughout the primaries.  Now he has moved decidedly right and this is the concern of liberals, centrists, libertarians, and crossover republicans.  Personally, I didn’t agree with Obama’s centrist stance during the primaries but I felt it would be the best for all of us to come together and at least begin to rein in some of the outlandish and criminal situations that the current administration and congress had put us.

Obama’s touting of neocon philosophies is dangerous for America and also the world.  My experience is that Obama’s base was not liberals or progressives but a conglomeration of various individuals willing to compromise to regain some semblance of sanity and balance.  As soon as Obama had the nomination he turned.  With the addition of welcoming Clinton into the fold, things have gotten bizarre.  The only thing I see he hasn’t “technically” wavered on is the Iraq war.

This is why I’ve now chosen to endorse Nader.  Unless you have a better idea.  To me, Barr is an unknown.  I like Cynthia McKinney but I feel Nader has a better shot…yes, a long shot..but a better shot.  Nader in my opinion is fully vetted, we know who Nader is, he’s proved himself time and again.  He also fully understands politics and the dirty pool that’s going on.  If we ALL switch….hey…landslides happen.

Report this

By samosamo, July 10, 2008 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

One of my favorite quotes I got from Chalmers Johnson quoting from the economist john maynard keynes, who said when asked about an issue he didn’t think was right anymore or some such situation: ‘Well, you once said you believed this or that but now you don’t, why?’ where upon keynes replied,‘when I get new information I change my mind, what, sir, do you do with new information?’.
So appropo. And I don’t say this so much as because of the bickering going on in the comments but because I was curious, from a comment here, about what was the exact wording of this bill/law. I think conservative yankee linked me to it at a site called ‘Tracking the US Congress’. Sure enough, there is was splayed out just as our congressionals should see it. Unfortunately, the legalese is noticibly confounding for me but I will wade through it.
But as I commented earlier about a bill of this type that immunizes corporations from any accountability is not good for this country or the world. It definitely sets people or groups(read corporations but others also) to a position above the law. But there are some things I noticed that actually looks like it does not absolve anyone from accoutability totally, like I said I need to read this over some more but as I just stated, on an issue of such importance it doesn’t seem good to allow immunity for some that is not allowed for others.
Now, does anyone want to explain why anyone or any group should be above the law when it is put against what is happening to the country and to the world by our elected persons or the military or anybody?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 10, 2008 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

Jersey Girl:

You need to rethink when you mix your personal dislike for someone with analysis. As for arrogant, I haven’t seen anyone as arrogant as you since, well, since Non-Credo. 

Cyrena and I have already fought some knock-down drag-out battles with each other.  I have my issues with her—and I think she has hers with me.

But your slam of her HERE is bullshit.  She’s not defending Obama’s vote on FISA—like me, she finds it inexplicable. 

What Cyrena DOES say, is that she STILL has no choice but to vote for Barack Obama.  I feel the same.  Any excitement I felt for him, and I felt a lot, has dissipated.

But every 4 years, folks like you come along, pontificate about why voting for Nader, or Perot, or Barr, or WHOEVER is running on the Green/Libertarian/Independent ticket is the only “honorable” thing to do…and why it’s better to let our nation TOTALLY collapse under a George Bush rather than fail to live up to your Socialist/Libertarian/ or fascist ideal—whichever brand of nuttiness you subscribe to.

You come, your rant, either a Dem or a Rep (usually a Rep) wins, and either it gets a little better (1992 to 2000) or a lot worse (2000 to now).

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

trouble: Love the sarcasm filled with truth wink

Report this

By troublesum, July 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

The Constitution According to Chairman (of The Party) Obama

1) Ok, freedom of the press is sort of a good idea but lets not push it.
2) A little bit of freedom of speech goes a long way.  Don’t over do it.
3) Let’s knock down some of the wall separating church and state.  “Mr Jefferson, tear down that wall!!”
4) People ought to have a little security in their own homes but what if the bank owns them - are they really their homes?  Banks have security alarms anyway.
5) I know people who like being searched and seized.  It’s a matter of personal taste.  Let’s not get hung up.
6) Speedy trials are necessary on tv because you only got an hour, but lets get real here; life is a little more complicated.
And what a Party it is…

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment

Edward:  Good for you!  How dare he be so cavalier about smashing the 4th amendment.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

A message from Chris Dodd: (one of the few good ones in the senate)

Yesterday was a sad day for the United States Senate.

It is my hope that the courts will undo the damage done to the Constitution.

But let us stand tall, knowing that by working together we were able to make wiretapping and retroactive immunity part of the national discourse these last number of months.

We came together – all of you, Senator Feingold, bloggers like Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald, organizations like the EFF and ACLU, and untold hundreds of thousands of Americans who simply wanted to make sure that this one, last insult did not happen with ease.

I’m sorry we weren’t successful.

I just hope I’m lucky enough to have you by my side in the next fight, whatever that may be.

Thanks for all you’ve done.

Chris Dodd

Report this

By Edward Sullivan, July 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok.” (Barack Obama in July 3 letter to anti-FISA supporters)

Fair enough, Barack, the Deal is Off.  I just tore up my contribution check.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

ACLU has followed through and filed suit::

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, July 10, 2008 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment

Re: Jim De Vries, July 10

“Anyone notice that McSame did NOT vote on this FISA thing?”

I did. And interestingly neither did Ron Paul which says a mouthful about the two.

It is pathetic that Obama voted for the amendments but then voted for the bill in its entirety.  This makes NO LOGICAL SENSE if one were casting a vote concerning the ISSUE and appears a lame attempt to passify his diminishing base.

Why should anyone cast a vote in Obama’s favor when Obama does not reciprocate?  Every senator and representative who cast a vote for this legislation voted AGAINST the people and FOR corporate and administration felons.  Those who didn’t vote…well… I think that goes without saying…(with the exception of Kennedy, of course)

293 votes in favor in the house, 69 in the senate….those not voting, house - 13, senate - 3

(thanks beerdoctor)

Report this

By bri, July 10, 2008 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The sad thing is, it’s probable that most moderates would been happy with a no vote from Obama. How many people really have sympathy for the telecoms and for that matter, people in government who will also receive immunity?  I think it’s a serious political mis-calculation that will haunt him until November.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

dihey: Isn’t it kind of presumptive for Obama to think he will be president? Instead of being so cocky perhaps it would have behooved him to at LEAST vote in favor of the 4th amendment instead of helping trash it.
Suppose McCain ends up with the power instead of him?  Not that I think Obama will change anything that bush has initiated either once in office.  He’s shown no signs of that.

Report this

By dihey, July 10, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

If Senator Obama believes that there will be no illegal phone or internet peeping ever done by some security-crazies during his administration he lives on another planet than I do. It will happen, guaranteed, and then the chicken will come home to roost. President Obama will only have to blame himself but he will probably point his finger at his “black sheep” of the Democratic Party Bill Clinton.

Report this

By Jim De Vries, July 10, 2008 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anyone notice that McSame did NOT vote on this FISA thing?

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

Dale: Those are my sentiments as well.

Report this

By Dale Headley, July 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This move by Congress to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment is, I’m afraid, a harbinger of what’s to come.  The very idea that the Constitution is no longer sacrosanct is a paradigm shift that means that, henceforth, the Bill of Rights will really be a bill of privileges - privileges to be doled out to citizens at the whim of the government.

Report this

By Marshall K, July 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Senators can be replaced.  The best way to get rid of these spineless old school Democratic culls who have gone along with Bush’s crap all these years is in the primaries.  Get a principled, progressive congressperson to challenge and BEAT THEIR ASSES in the primary.  We don’t need them.  Time to move on.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

Inherit:  Before they voted on the fisa bill Cyrena repeatedly asked where he said he was supporting the “compromise”.(some compromise)  Though many of us had posted exactly that, in his own words in quotes.  The problem with cyrena is her arrogant attitude. Apparently, she’s the only one with a brain and the “facts” behind her.

Well, it’s been proven, she’s not always that up on the current facts from some of the questions she’s raised and answers she’s given.  People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones or something like that.

The truth is, cyrena has alienated a lot of people on this board, even those who partially agree with her with her own ad hominem attacks on those she disagrees with.

So inherit, if you want to be fair, tell cyrena to take that arrogant tone down a notch and you’ll see people respond in a different way to her posts.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

tomack:  Which is exactly why I’m not voting for Obama and certainly not for that doddering old flip flopping fool McCain. 

I am voting for Nader because he IS a man of integrity and principle.  Until the country slides out of the slime of corrupt corporate politics, I will not vote for another democrat as long as I live.

I’ve had enough.  I want better for my country than the same old political bs.  I want integrity and honesty and you’re telling me I can’t have it with this candidate.(no kidding)  Fine.  Kucinich was my only choice and when they practically shut him out at the debates and actually DID shut him out totally of one of the debates, I made my mind up it’s all a dirty shell game.  One which we can only lose no matter which of the two “players” wins.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 10, 2008 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

I find myself in the odd position of defending Cyrena…She did NOT apologize for Obama’s vote. Like me, she is baffled, stunned and disappointed by it.  I’m not aware the Bill Clinton VIOLATED FISA when he engaged in domestic spying.  Did he get a FISA warrant before? Did he file for a FISA warrant after under the 72-hour provision?  I think you’ll find he did.

It’s President Mussolini and his sidekick Dick Himmler who didn’t even want to do THAT!

As for the name calling—to describe Barack Obama as an imperialist fascist is just plain STEW-PED! It’s as childish as Faux Noisettes calling everyone left of Drip Cheney a commie.

Gail Collins nailed it inadvertently in her apologist screed in today’s NYTimes—B.O. has always been a compromiser: “I don’t see Red States and Blue States, I see the United States”.

And with Pres. Mussolini NEVER bending, the Dimo-Squids have been trying to bend to have a “compromise” with him even if he just gives in on the color of the folder the bill is put into.  The ‘squids don’t even REALIZE they’ve “compromised” so much they’ve actually capitulated to the putz—yet again.

I’ve just realized that: a) I’m older than Obama. b) I’m more experienced than him c) I’ll never be the politician he is, and d) I may be smarter than him (I’m DEFINITELY smarter than McSame is—but he’s half-senile so that’s not saying much).  Therefore I know DAMN well without needing an explanation that his vote on FISA was an incredibly bad one no matter how much he tries to weasel out of it.

But what should we expect? He’s a politician.

Amazing for ME to be defending Cyrena.  The world of Truthdig just gets weirder every day.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 10, 2008 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

You want to read the entire thing? Here it is:

Report this

By Sue Cook, July 10, 2008 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Barack Obama now will be seen as a hypocrite when attaching the label to McCain as being a 3rd Bush term.

Report this

By dihey, July 10, 2008 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

The Democratic Party will still be deeply split at convention-time and this new split cannot be hidden with political cosmetics of kissing and hugging on TV news or explained away by lame Cyrena-like apologies for Obama’s faltering leadership. The current division is not between supporters of Obama and Clinton but between those who are apparently always willing to swerve from principles for the sake of getting Obama elected President and those who accept much of that but draw a “line in the sand” at some point. Obama has become the leader of the first group and has thereby forsaken the leadership of the Democratic Party at least for now. He should have realized the depth of the split on FISA(28 against him 22 for him if you count Lieberman as you should because he is a member of the Democratic Caucus; Kennedy was at home)and should have either done what Teddy Roosevelt would have done, namely completely overpower his opponents via the bully pulpit, or have stayed above the fray by explaining that he would not vote with one or the other group and, given the certain acceptance of the bill, would consult with all about speedy future revisions. He has done neither and thereby failed in leadership.
He seems to have fooled some but not me by introducing meaningless save-your-ass and doomed-to-fail amendments on the “immunity gift” which was anyway only a minor blemish of the legislation that he later voted for to pass. It is a hallmark of this politician that he even tried to fool us. What again did Lincoln have to say about this?
The second group has no leader but counts Feingold, Byrd, Biden, Clinton, and Dodd among its members. That is a pretty powerful group which will cause much trouble for a President Obama.
That same split can be found on “progressive” Internet sites although it is difficult to estimate how many of the anti-Obamaites are Republican “trolls.”
Regardless of the certain herd-like “unity hosanna” at the convention (but be not surprised if Obama is also briefly booed by former supporters), the split will undoubtedly persist into an Obama administration because his potential Democratic opponents for the 2012 nomination have discovered that Obama is not a “strong leader” but more of a “weak reed” that bends with almost every breeze which he will continue to do even after he has become our next President.
The 2012 Republican wannabes gleefully have discovered that too. They eagerly await Obama’s return from his visit to Iraq. Some probable bending on Iraq by Obama has already been announced publicly to dampen the worst of the future fury.

Report this

By samosamo, July 10, 2008 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

What a freakin cluster fuck. So many people commenting by calling each other names and expounding on who, why and where you them us are right or wrong. Sound familiar? Does to me. I cannnot point out the obvious obstructors here but from these truths I speak which I noticed in one of cyrena’s posts:
Who has read the bill? Who knows the exact provisions in the bill, oops sorry, this law. I would hope someone does because a very disturbing fact is that except for about 20 or 30 members of congress, NONE of the rest of the house or senate have read it. It was undoubtedly drafted by someone like john yoo or viet dehn, 2 foreign henchmen from repressive asian countries with their ideas of keepping track of people, not just terrorists, but also the ones that may go overboard in their criticism of the government. That is the crux of it without knowing specifics. And being a law I would think it should be available somewhere for public perusal.
I personally believe it is not a good law and that there are laws and processes in law enforcement that are sufficient enough to handle actions against someone committing an act of terror. Using is it as a tool against a war on terror(ism) is ludicrous(sp).

Report this

By Ed, July 10, 2008 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama had to vote the way he did because too many idiot Americans think O’Riley and Limbaugh are pundits.

Report this

By tomack, July 10, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

With all due respect I think you’re observation is somewhat naïve from a “political” standpoint. From a human standpoint you are spot on, and positive. However, getting elected has nothing to do with “always” speaking your mind and being positive (have you witnessed elections in recent years? Of course you have, and you know they are getting worse by accentuating the negative). It is ALL about votes. Period, simply that. Not saying it’s right, just pointing out the obvious.

Maybe you and me, and some of the others on sites like this, wish our elected officials would stand up for our Constitution more, but it is as clear as mud that they are not…with the few exceptions noted earlier here and in other posts.

But those politicians are NOT electable because there are still so many fringe votes out there, on both sides by the way. This election probably has more available swappers than any election in many years.

We ask why so many dems, and repubs, vote for a bill like this—not to mention all the others that should have been flushed, not to mention THE WAR—and the answer is da votes, baby, da votes. They know a lot more about their respective bases than we do, and a lot more about the potential fringe votes as well.

Unfortunately that knowledge does not best serve the people.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

tomack:  I have to heartily disagree with you.  We have NEVER seen a candidate with obama’s popularity stand up to a republlican in that way in a debate or otherwise in our recent history.

That kind of courage is just what the american people want to hear.  WHy do you think dems like me have decided to leave the party after Kerry, the wimp conceded so quickly and the dems we put in office in 06 (that we had so much hope for) were so quick to sell us out as well?

It’s also why the republicans get away with bullying.  They know democrats are lilly livered cowards.

Report this

By tomack, July 10, 2008 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

By the way, I forgot to add that I always thought this site was a cut above some of the others because the discourse and “spirited exchange” was somewhat civil.

It seems it is changing….

I emplore all of you to remember that unity is better than division. Let the media, pundits, and the far right try to divide—it is our duty to unite.

Ever so softly we go, step by step, always tip your cap and say hello.

Report this

By tomack, July 10, 2008 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

I wish…but i do not believe it would be game, set, match. Whether you wish to believe it or not there are still many votes out there who want to hear that “tough on terror” crap. And these people are to their bones politicians, and a politician will tell you anything to get into office and anything to stay. Unfortunetly, any politician who stood up to the sttus quo in such a way—speaking about civil liberties over fighting terror—would not be electable.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, July 10, 2008 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If voting is even relevant anymore, vote out ALL incumbents on ALL levels. Then write-in Alfred E. Neuman for president. Because THAT would be relevant.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

Jblack: Wow, that’s cyrena alright

Report this

By Jim Yell, July 10, 2008 at 6:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Our forefathers knew and expected crime and dishonesty in government and the devices they put in place are there for a reason and expected to be used.

The republicans and the Bush/Cheney administration has constantly used every opportunity to break the laws of the land and even if they were fairly elected, which they weren’t it would still be wrong and illegal. They are criminals and letting them get away with it, because impeachment is just too much bother is not only wrong it will lead to the collapse of the country.

200 years of democracy and some people still don’t understand that the government is a servant of the nation, not the reason for the nation. Enforce the law, arrest the telecomunication criminals and while at it give the Bush/Cheney people the jail time they deserve. Gangsters all of them.

Report this

By cyrena, July 10, 2008 at 6:10 am Link to this comment

Cyrena first states that FISA was working “until DickBush” broke it but, then goes on to explain how she knows the same was done by Clinton years before.


JBlack, as much as you just love to call me a bigot, (not having a clue to anything about me, or what the word even means) it doesn’t fit at all with this response.

Here’s the deal. I have READ, that Slick Willey Clinton was eavesdropping without warrants as early as 1998. (Dick Bush began doing it in 2001). Now I WAS NOT aware, in 1998 that Slick Willey was spying on Americans without warrants. And, I don’t have any particular proof or independently corroborated evidence of that even now. (which we OBVIOUSLY have from Dick Bush).

So again. I READ that Slick Willey was spying back as early as 1998, which was TWO YEARS before his successors took it up, after the Judicial Coup of 2000, when they stole the election/Oval Office.

Does it really MATTER? I mean, aside from the fact that Slick Willey can also be criminally prosecuted for violating the same FISA laws, if his spying can be proven, DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

How special does it make me, to hate Dick Bush? NOT SPECIAL AT ALL. I think it’s reasonable to say that after 8 years of the worst crimes against humanity that anyone can think of in modern history, pretty much the ENTIRE WORLD HATES THEM! Nope. I’m not special.

You’re really pathetic Clarence JBlack Thomas. So, I guess that makes YOU pretty special. You are CLEARLY in the minority. And, that is the most we can be thankful for right now.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 6:00 am Link to this comment

tomack:  If OSame were a real leader..during that debate with McIsane the one where he accuses him of aiding the terrorists..He’d have turned..looked him dead in the eye and said “no sir, I was preserving the rights of the american people by defending the constitution ”  And the crowd would go wild .. game, set, match !

Report this

By tomack, July 10, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

Not that I agree with his vote—at all—but perhaps Obama was looking forward to the debates, when McPain would have certainly said, “Senator, you voted to support the terrorists while I voted to fight them.”

There is still a fair sized left/moderate/independent block that continues to be scared shitless of the Turists. Politicians will continue to pander their direction in hopes of votes.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 4:51 am Link to this comment

scottk: thank you smile  Enough with cyrena already.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 4:49 am Link to this comment

NADER/GONZALEZ for REAL CHANGE not False hope !!!

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 10, 2008 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

And still, after all these months talking about FISA, the main point has been missed.  Who cares if the telecoms get immunity?  They didn’t decide to spy on Americans and then shop what they gathered to the government.  They were told to spy on us by the government.

And oh these long months when not even the “progressive” web sites will talk about the real evil lurking in this bill: that the government employees who ordered the spying get their immunity too.

Split hairs all you want about who voted yea and who voted nay.  No filibuster, no walkouts, no passive resistance from any senator…no one really laying everything on the line to save the 4th amendment.  My senators both voted “nay”, but that only soothes their conscience.

Game over, America…when can we stop pretending that we don’t live in a third world, banana republic dictatorship?

Report this

By jersey girl, July 10, 2008 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

cyrena: I’m pathetic?? LOL. YOU are the pathetic one.  Why did anyone vote for it? LOL because they are fascists and fascist sympathizers,that’s why !  My god, I can’t believe how dumb you really are!

You say you have no idea what the bill says?  I thought you said you were a lawyer?? Really? I mean REALLY??!! Yea right, and I’m angelina jolie.

See what Jonathan Turley a REAL (constitutional) attorney has to say about it in the link below.  That is, if you really want to learn the truth. Which you don’t, so you won’t.  So continue chanting “yes we can” and “change change change” until the cow jumps over the moon. You’ve proven yourself to be nothing but a sad, syncophantic apologist for another lying imperialist fascist running for president. He obviously wants the same powers bush has amassed for himself when he becomes president. He has no intention of changing a thing otherwise he’d have at the very LEAST voted against the bill to show solidarity with those defending the 4th amendment.

Just keep this in mind.  Obama, along with all the other demorat fascist appeasers, made bush and the repiglicans VERY HAPPY yesterday.  They gave him exactly what he and the telecoms wanted and screwed the rest of us !  So, go ahead and vote for a man who has joined the fascist takeover.  What a choice you have in ‘08. It’s like being given a choice between hitler and stalin.  Hmmmm which one will do the least amount of harm to the country…

Report this

By cyrena, July 10, 2008 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

Barack Obama took Keith Olbermann’s advice and was one of a minority of senators who voted to strip telecom immunity, but he ultimately voted for the bill.


Gee, I didn’t even know about this part…though Obama DID say that he would try to remove the telecom immunity provision. (but of course it didn’t work, because we knew that it wouldn’t, just like HRC was posturing with her NO vote…knowing damn well that it would pass anyway…no naivety there, but then snakes never are – naïve that is.)

Meantime, Inherit the Wind made me think of something…WHY DID ANY OF THEM VOTE FOR IT? And where were all of the hysterical ones that we’re hearing from NOW, (same old same old) not anywhere around when THE REST OF US were hollering about this over a year ago? This didn’t just come to our attention when Obama became the Democratic nominee, even if that IS the case for the pathetic girl in Jersey. We’ve been round and round with this.

But, back to why ANYBODY voted for it. Humm…has anybody even READ the entire thing? I haven’t. I’ve read what appear to be the main points of it, which were initially intended as an overhaul, but I’ve not read the entire thing, to determine how much of the original intent of the 1978 bill has remained.

So my GUESS, (without reading the entire thing) is that it must continue to serve that original purpose, even though my own opinion has been that there was never a need to do anything more to the original bill, other than to adjust for new technology, and THAT should have been simple enough.

So, how ‘different’ *is* this new bill, from that of the old, that nobody seemed to complain about, because there was no reason to complain about it, as long as it wasn’t being violated. The original FISA bill worked just fine, until Dick Bush broke the laws of it, (though I’ve read that Slick Willey did it first…as early as 1998). So, it’s clearly not the BILL that needed repair or updating, but rather the criminals who violated it. THEY need repair, in the form of life long incarceration.

Fortunately, THAT can still be accomplished. They can all be held criminally responsible for violating the laws of the original bill, and there’s no ‘immunity’ on that, nor is there a ‘statute of limitations.’  So, somebody should get to it. I’ll read the new one and compare it with the old, just for the hell of it, so that at least we know what we’re all hot and bothered about. I’m only hot and bothered about the violation of the old laws, which meant that the required warrants were never sought, and from what I DO know about the new one, I don’t think that requirement has been thrown out. Still, I’d have to read the fine print. It also doesn’t mean that Dick Bush won’t continue the violations. I think it’s a given that they will.

But, that might help answer ITW’s question, which is now my own question as well. If it’s THAT bad, (or that different from the original) why DID *any* of them vote for it..this time, or the 3 times before when it’s come up?

If anyone else has already been through the entire language/text of the bill, and can offer an analysis on what differences actually exist between this and the original 1978 law, that would be helpful.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 10, 2008 at 12:31 am Link to this comment

The Republic is broken. So those who want Obama to be in charge, go ahead and put him in office. He will be the head of a colossal entity that doesn’t mean anything. I am reminded of a scene in the movie Death Hunt, where Lee Marvin, the Royal Canadian Police constable hands the operation over to Andrew Stevens, placing his strapped pistol over young Stevens neck, saying: “You’re in charge now, you decide when the killing stops.”

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, July 9, 2008 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Senate has what, 29 more working days in ‘08? Good. Then there’s time for all 300 million American bodies to show up at their house door. They won’t need to eavesdrop.

Report this

By samosamo, July 9, 2008 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

It is a sad day anytime that the corporations get more immunity from their actions and complicity with anybody, government, secret agencies, military, any body. These corporations can and will rain down ruin on a lot of people under the guise of measures against terrorism. And the biggest issue will be when this new christmas gift for a goddamn criminal, w, will be used against the citizens to condemn them to prosecution and incarcaration and torture if not worse things just because someone will disagree with the current administration in power, not just little w’s admin, but whoever becomes president down the road; because if some grass roots revolution doesn’t get things back in order then instead of a responsible congress, executive branch and court system to slam dunk these kind of laws, it will not be long before your ‘supervisor’ will be showing up at your door to check on your ‘status’.
And perchance you are destroyed and loose everything because of this, that is it. You or me will never be able to gain any kind of restitution from these bastions of evil and criminal croporate elitism.

Report this

By Reubenesque, July 9, 2008 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here is a copy of the e-mails I sent to my senators:  Democrats Mark Pryor and Blanch Lincoln Of Arkansas.  Both voted for the new FISA law.

“I am highly disappointed in your FISA vote today.  The Bill of Rights and in particular my Forth Amendment rights are precious and valued principles I enjoy with gratitude and pride.  I feel betrayed by the Democratic party in their inability and unwillingness to bring to bear the rule of law upon a despotic and out of control President.  Also you have granted immunity not only retroactively but proactively before even knowing the facts about eavsdropping activities by the giant telecoms.

July 9, 2008 goes down in history as a watermark date in the descention of a great democracy into one of mediocracy.  And you have now played a contributing role in that.

Terrorists now realize they may not have to attack again since politians like you are allowing this country to be taken apart one unprosecuted felony and one constitutional shread at a time.

I trust you realize that the little box by your name will remain unchecked by me at my next opportunity.

Alltel monies anyone?”
Note.  Alltel is based in Little Rock.

Report this

By gary captol, July 9, 2008 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can understand the disappointment in Obama voting For FISA bill.  He had his reasons.  If you ever listen to Randi Roades, she explains it very well.  The idea of NOT voting for OBAMA for this is something that should not even be given a thought. Do we really want 4 - 8 years of another BUSH clone ?  Or voting for NADER is going to prove what or anyone else.  Lets get real.  Yes we did lose this fight today but with a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT and hopefully a bigger majority in both the SENATE and the HOUSE then this bill can be altered.  I agree it sucks but to sacrifice what is best for this country because OBAMA voted yes on the FISA Bill would be a big mistake.  McCain, Clinton, Nader, Barr, are not the answer.  So why throw away your vote ?

Report this

By dihey, July 9, 2008 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

I hope that all you true Independents out there watched the interview of Senator Feingold on the MSNBC “Oddball” program tonight.
Firstly Feingold called the FISA vote possibly the greatest violation of our constitution ever. Put that in your pipe Obama and smoke it: possibly the greatest violation of our constitution ever. You approved it.
Then Feingold pointed out that the “immunity gift”, bad as it was, was not the worst part of the bill by a long shot. By far the worst and most worrisome provisions substantially encase the President’s power to peep into many of our communications without efficient FISA oversight and in some cases without any oversight at all.
When Feingold was asked whether he thought that a President Obama should consider criminal prosecution of the telecoms (the Olberman stick), Feingold’s answer suggested that he thought that would be a bad idea because it would detract from the main objective of changing the current legislation.
Obama wanted to strip the telecom immunity but did not oppose the worst aspects of the bill. The bill was “an improvement” he claimed. One would like to know “an improvement over what?” Certainly not over the original FISA bill which would have continued to be the law of the land had the current bill been defeated.
Lastly Feingold expressed the hope that a future President Obama would be supportive of revisions of the legislation but he warned that that would “take a long time.” I am afraid that Feingold is naive on this one.
Judging from what is now on display in the “Presidential Shopwindow”, true Independents cannot vote for Obama or for McCain in November but must either stay at home or vote for one of the so-called “minor candidates.”
Cyrena is transiently in “Obama-shock” but do not despair folks, Super-Woman will be back with endless diatribes!
Jersey Girl: should we add Lieberman to the “in favor” group? After all he is still and inexplicably a member of the Democratic Caucus of the Senate.
What a group of almost nobodies Obama is in!
If someone had told me 30 to 40 years ago “some day Senator Byrd will be in your corner on the 4th amendment” I might have questioned that person’s sanity. Yet there he is among the “nays!”

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 9, 2008 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

I see a lot of comments, yet nobody, but NOBODY can explain why ANY Democrat would vote to end the 4th Amendment. What are they THINKING???????

I don’t even understand how most REPUBLICANS can vote for such a fascist piece of garbage.

How is this possible?  Yet we KNOW that this Supreme Court will uphold the “Constitutionality” of it by a 5-4 margin.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

Openminded:  Trust me, I did not mean to EVER praise Reid !!  I’ve already read the Greenwald piece.  I’m one of his biggest fans.. but thanks smile

Report this

By OpenMindedNotCredulous, July 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

Jersey Girl,

I can’t speak to the other senators who voted against this abomination but Senator Reid deserves no consideration, let alone praise, for his vote. He did everything in his power to ensure it passed. His no vote is a fig leaf. Read Glenn Greenwald’s blog for details.

Report this

By Joe R., July 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush has turned America into a right wing fascist police state.  Obama voting for it is an ominous sign.  I am going to right in Edwards.

Report this

By JimM, July 9, 2008 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

It is indeed shameful.

All we peons can do is entirely avoid products and services from Verizon, AT&T;and others that spied on us. Lets spread the word and tell them why.

we should know their only sensitivity and response to anything is adverse financial news, so let’s give them some.

As for the congress, it does not deserve its’ 9% approval rating, and Obama is a wimp.

Report this

By JimS, July 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

I backed Obama.  Contributed to his campaign.  Talked him up to friends.  Wrote about him and encouraged others to see him favorably.

But Sen. Obama’s vote on HR 6304 means he voted to support this regime’s “snoop” tactics and voted against privacy and civil liberties.

Any politician who voted for this Bill will NOT have my vote.

John McCain is not an option.  Neither, regrettably, is Obama.  I’m going to write in Clinton.

Report this

By Improbus, July 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We are frakked.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

trouble: ha ! you took the words right out of my mouth.

Report this

By troublesum, July 9, 2008 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

Spin this one cyrena.

Report this

By troublesum, July 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

There are 28 Americans in the senate and Obama isn’t one of them.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

Tim Kelly:  I agree 100 %

Report this

By joe, July 9, 2008 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

well mr. obama i did have a lot of confidence in you,until you voted for fisa bill,i think that ralph nader is right about the 2 party system they are corupt and they never get anythink done for the american people,good luck my vote goes to nader.

Report this

By Tim Kelly, July 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The purpose of the Democratic Party is to prevent anyone from defeating the Republican agenda.

Now that Obama has won the competition to be the greater pretender, what exactly is it that he will do as President that makes him worth voting for?

A vote for Nader is a vote for democracy.  Dismantle the Democratic Party now.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm Link to this comment

Ok all you obama supporters, look at the company he’s in!  All your favorite dems right???  ANd oh my, look who voted AGAINST the bill.. why it’s Hillary Clinton!

At least my two senators voted against the bill. I can take heart in that fact knowing that Senator Lautenberg still has a perfect voting record in my eyes.

See if your dem senator respects the constitution:

Democrats voting in favor of final passage of the FISA bill: Bayh - Carper - Casey - Conrad - Feinstein - Innuoye - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mukulski - Nelson (Neb.) - Nelson (Fla.) - Obama - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb - Whitehouse.

Democrats voting against final passage of the FISA bill: Akaka - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Byrd - Cantwell - Cardin - Clinton - Dodd - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Kerry - Klobachur - Lautenberg - Leahy - Levin - Menendez - Murray - Reed - Reid - Sanders - Schumer - Stabenow - Tester - Wyden.

Report this

sign up to get updates

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.