From the U. S. Senate website:
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 5059 to H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Statement of Purpose: To limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional.
Vote Counts:
YEAs - 37
NAYs - 61
Not Voting - 2
Grouped By Vote Position [In other words, the good guys]
YEAS
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
The list of the other guys may be found at the link above.
May I say that I was devastated by the large of Democrats who voted against the amendment? Ah, yes, they called the amendment a compromise, but it was rather a capitulation to the Bush maladministration. The Republicans know better. They are jubilant. They know that they won.
The Democrats know better, too. It's pure spin on voting wrong. What kind of back-room wheeling and dealing went on to make this happen?
I congratulate Sen. Arlen Spector, the lone Republican, who saw this vote for what it was and voted right. You Democrats who voted wrong, I am ashamed of you.
Glad to see my Senators, Hillary and Chuck, on the yea list.
ReplyDeleteI guess.
Whatever.
Sheesh.
There were three amendments aimed at eliminating telecom immunity, each approaching the issue in a different way. Specter voted for two of the three, sponsoring one of them. The one he voted against was Dodd's amendment, which was actually the most notable and closely watched. I admire Specter and have told him personally that I am praying for his health, and he could have done worse on this one, but he also could have done better.
ReplyDeleteThe other two votes that mattered were cloture and the bill itself. My main man Biden was where he needed to be on everything but cloture. Not sure why he voted for it, as he initially said he'd be part of Dodd's filibuster.
Nathan, I know there were three votes. It was more than the one amendment that I posted. However you slice it, the actions of the majority of Democrats were shameful. Perhaps, in some form of twisted logic, they justify their votes, however, it seems to me that they are still fearful of the "soft on terrorists" label, and that's what fuels this type of disastrous result.
ReplyDeleteThere may be another reason for their votes than just fear of a label. I'm working on Capitol Hill for the spring and summer. Every morning, walking the six or so blocks from Union Station to the Episcopal office nextdoor to the Senate office buildings (where I was in the spring), I pass at least two dozen police officers, three squad cars, two small station houses, and no small number of concrete traffic barricades that have to be lowered to let cars in - or out. The House side is no different, and if I were to actually enter the buildings, I'd pass through metal detectors and see at least another dozen cops. Every office has numerous security announcers and scores of hoods for use in case of a chemical attack. This is the world these Senators live in everyday. They don't see neighborhood grocery stores you can walk right up to, or neighbors waving at strangers walking by - they see M16s. When all you see is security and police, it affects your mindset. These guys live and work in a terrorist target, and so instead of thinking of the majority of heartland America, they think of the Capitol Police bombsquad.
ReplyDeleteNot that this excuses their votes in anyway. The law is the law, the Constitution the Constitution, and liberty liberty. But it is an explanation.
Nathan, to that I would say that they should come out of their DC cocoon and get out and about and see the real world of their constituents, just to keep things in perspective. There's something noxious in the DC air that affects even those who do not work in governmental offices, such as the press assigned to to the capital city.
ReplyDeleteYou be careful, now. I wouldn't want to see you affected by the toxicity.
No arguments from me! And don't worry, I escape to my grandmother's house east of Richmond whenever I can! :)
ReplyDeleteNathan, thank you for your observations of the Senate office buildings. Perhaps that sense of siege explains Congress' recent actions, perhaps not.
ReplyDeleteI will tell you as a New Yorker that in the city which saw the worst-ever terror attack on American soil, no one is that paranoid.
I hate to sound like a party pooper, but I wonder how Hillary would have voted if things were different.
ReplyDeleteIf things were different how?
ReplyDeleteFran, may God forgive me, but I had the same thought.
ReplyDeleteJane, if she had won the nomination.
Three of us thought it.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm in Connecticut, where we have one Senator to be proud of, and the other is a blot on the Senate, which takes some doing.
Johnieb, Liebermann is indeed a blot, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the worst kind. If the Dems get a larger majority, he should be stripped of all of his power on senate committees. Maybe then, he'll move to the other side where he belongs.
ReplyDelete