Kerry just voted in Favor the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act

[radio4progressives]

just in case that matters to anyone here.

[Mass]

1. So did Boxer and Kennedy.

Just in case it matters to anyone (or is it only Kerry).

At this point 4 NO Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Murray.

[radio4progressives]

4. boxer and kennedy aren't running for president, but you have a good point

just one more nail in the coffin of our basic Civil Liberties - all in the name of "terra"

[Mass]

Or something else that you miss.

You know of course that neither Feingold nor the ACLU wants to repeal the Patriot Act. They want to fix it.

That some of the most liberal Senators are voting for this Act should tell us that we may be missing something. And Feingold voted for Roberts, which is not better, IMHO, because now, if you want to oppose the Patriot Act, you have to hope Roberts and Alito will vote in the rigth direction.

So if you want to keep score, OK.

This said, I am mad at my two senators.

[radio4progressives]

18. Feingold did want to four years ago.. the "We are Strong On Security" Meme

touted by the militarists elite forces all party members to stand behind that meme, and yes I know about the ACLU - learned about that in the summer of 2004 during the party platform conference held in Hollywood Florida a few weeks before the DNC in Boston.

I reported about that on the Kerry forum back then. but guess i haven't talked about that enough here, if at all.

I don't follow the Roberts Alito thingy, please clarify?

[MH1]

37. Keeping score

Feingold voted to confirm Roberts to the Supreme Court. I suspect it was only the bashing he took for that, that made him vote against Alito... Feingold believes "the President should get his nominees" even when it is to the Supreme Court and the "President" was not duly elected.

Kerry actually believes that the Patriot Act fills legal gaps that needed to be filled, although it also does some bad things with respect to civil liberties. (This is what he has essentially said). The changes that they obtained in this round, when balanced with the need for certain points in the bill, were enough for he, Boxer, and most other Dems to vote for it. (I am not sure that I agree with him on this. However it is NOT as black and white as some folks here want to make it. But I do understand your purpose. Oh yes, I do.)

[OzarkDem]

99. Dems better make their case

if they voted to extend it. It hasn't accomplished anything, has it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

126. It's called the Patriot Act.

That's as "black and white" as it gets.

We'll get back to those "bad things with respect to civil liberties" later.

Indefensible.

[NativeTexan]

101. I want to RENAME the damned thing!!!

[seabeyond]

109. i think some things were put in to keep bush in check

that they felt strongly needed to be there, and now, with all the abuses bush is making. i think this is more complicated than what we are getting. and i am confident if there was not a reason, lerry or kennedy would not have voted for it. i think we have a responsibility and obligation to find out WHY they voted as they did. and thank you mass for your posts. always a thumbs up

[karynnj]

12. But Bayh, Clinton, and Biden are running

(I don't remember if Biden voted) but Bayh and Clinton voted aye.

I think this is a tough vote either way - it may be that this is the best bill they are going to get and it has more good than bad.

[whometense]

19. Biden voted aye. n/t

[Hoosier Democrat]

35. No surprise on Bayh...

He's nothing but a DINO sell-out.

He can run, but he won't make it out of Iowa.

[Warpy]

36. Uh, I hate to be practical about this, but how long was this

particular extension? Another month? Until Stupid is gone? Forever?

I'd need to know the answer to this before I decide anything.

[radio4progressives]

47. Some are permanent and one provision is until 2009.

but i forget which one... right now.

[Generator]

49. 14 permanent-I guess that's forever as far as I understand English

With 16 provisions of the act set to expire next week, the bill would make 14 of them permanent and extend two others by four years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060302/pl_nm/security_patriot_dc_4;_ylt=AiVC0DMsVItonCgLyf.ETfWMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--


I'll say it again dear Du'ers: If you are expecting Congress whether Dems or Republicans to protect your liberites or your life you are seriously deluded. That's all I see on DU anymore-two camps-the "It's okay we'll win next time, it's not that bad" camp of denial and the reality based camp I'm in.

I noticed in another article Feingold called the few changes cosmetic.

COSMETIC. Wow. That delay was really worth it. We won so much.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

127. "My guy, who votes for indefensible things, twice, really has an

ulterior motive that will only be revealed in the distant future" camp and

the reality-based camp.


If you don't learn from your mistakes you're doomed to repeat them. Fer chrissakes! Pluck thine head from thine ass, people.

[Skink]

2. Man does he not want to be President..

[Mass]

3. LOL - Of course Boxer and Kennedy are such sellouts.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

128. Some call it "political cover."

"Well X can't be selling us out because Y and Z supported it, too."

This was the second time for all three of them. If you think "this" wasn't talked about amongst themselves you're a little naive. By "this" I mean how they were going to vote. Their constituents have made it abundantly clear on where they stand on the Patriot Act, yet we get this shit.

Disgusting.

[mtnsnake]

93. Don't worry. There's not a chance

Gore needs to be talked into it. Or Dean. I doubt you'd see either of them voting to reauthorize any Patriot Act if they were in a position to vote on it. Patriot my ass. There's nothing patriotic about it.

[FreedomAngel82]

108. Dean has promised he is not running again

And wasn't this just to end the debate?

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. So did a lot of other Democrats, BFD

What actually matters to me is your transparent as fuck agenda to promote a third party on DU's bandwidth.

Add Kennedy and Boxer in your sig line, and maybe I'll believe that you're actually sincere about civil liberties and not just a Green part agitator. On second thought, all your posts here do is tear down the Democratic party, so...

[radio4progressives]

10. Feingold is a not a Third Party.. Feingold is a Democrat

Feingold is who I support.

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Feingold voted for Roberts

But that doesn't matter?

Nitpicking votes like this is the height of stupidity.

[pstans]

100. Feingold votes on nominees based on principle

He believes the President has the right to nominate the people he wants to work with and they should be confirmed if they are qualified. He felt that Roberts and Ashcroft were qualified. He did not feel that Gonzalez and Alito were and he voted against them. Feingold votes on nominees based on principle, just as he does every other issue.

[Mass]

15. So you support voting for Roberts. Fine.

We all have our token votes.

I judge on a set of votes, not an individual vote. On this basis, I like both.

[LynneSin]

21. And John Ashcroft

:grr:

[Mass]

29. Thanks, I forgot.

And Rice.

In fact, I have no problem with Feingold. I have problems with those who jump on all latest votes to say that somebody should be burnt and somebody becomes an instant hero, then change the next day because of the next vote.

This is plain silly. I object to my senators' vote, but I am not going to throw my senators away because I disagree with them on this vote.

[LynneSin]

32. Amen and Alleluia

I can guarantee there will be people here ready to burn the democratic party because only five democrats voted against it even though some of those democrats voted for Alito or voted 'incorrectly' on some other issue.

Get over it. The best victory we have was that some changes were made. We still have a ways to go but hopefully when it expires again we'll fix it even more

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. Ashcroft, who pushed for the worst parts of the Patriot Act

Let's not pretend that Feingold is against the ENTIRE Patriot Act. He's against SOME of it - the parts which got pushed in by Ashcroft, whom he voted to confirm.

Too much black/white idealization on DU - now suddenly this vote is the new litmus test and Feingold is the latest saint. His voting record is not perfect, as much as some here would like to pretend it is. No one's voting record is "perfect." As they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Feingold has a good record, but so do many other senators such as Kerry, Kennedy, and Boxer (who all voted aye today).

This thread has NO PURPOSE other than to start division. It tends to be a pattern with a certain member here.

[DeadHorse]

6. Kerry did what???!

Can't believe he would sell us out like that! What about our rights?!

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. So did Boxer and Kennedy!!!!!11!!!11

Do you hate them now too???!!!!!?!!!!111one

:eyes:

[wicket]

34. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Idioteque]

7. It isn't that bad, with the Sununu amendments...

...although the original Senate version would have been much better.

[radio4progressives]

11. guess you didn't get the fig leaf memo? n/t

[blm]

8. No surprise - alot of them favor the 90% of the bill that IS needed.

Had it just been tweaked a bit more, then ALL would vote for it, including Feingold.

Personally, I would have held out for the changes that Kerry and Sununu submitted in Dec/2003.

It will be imperative for a Dem who wants the changes to get the bully pulpit in 2009.

[TayTay]

16. I agree with that.

The bill the Senate passed unanimously last year was better too, but the Rethugs in the House made it worse.

This has been an up or down process. (How many procedural votes on this did they have?) The bottom line is that we didn't have the votes to stop it. It's a better bill than what the House wanted, but far from perfect.

I don't have a problem with the Dems on this one who voted for it.

[AX10]

23. Actually, it is the House that is holding back the improvments.

Senator Larry Craig's "SAFE ACT" (I support the SAFE ACT) was the true alternative to the PATRIOT ACT. The SAFE ACT could not get enough support in the House, so the Senate agreed to a compromise with the House.

[radio4progressives]

104. Do You actually believe that any of it was needed?

Just because these clowns in washington say it's so, don't mean it's true.

[blm]

114. I don't believe clowns, I believe serious antiterror legislation crafted

back in the mid90s and through Clinton's 2nd term. Some of us have been attuned to the issue of tracking terrorists and their funding since BCCI revealed its global network.

The HartRudman Report on Global Terror urged serious proposals, too.

The GOP lined up against serious legislation, and only after 9-11 did they try to play catch up and then acted as if they crafted the bills themselves.

Bush's justice dept added more onerous legislation than was needed, and that is the part of the bill that many disagree with, and this last goround had the bill tweaked on 3 issues for our side. That was still some improvement, so lawmakers had to decide whether they wanted the 90% of the bill that was needed over the 10% they disagreed with.

I would have tried to hold out for more myself, but it's still a close call as far working to be effective legislators MINDFUL of national security concerns. Too bad more didn't side with Kerry back when he was TRYING for effective anti-terror legislation that would keep better track of terrorists and their money trails. There would have BEEN NO 9-11 in the first place.

I fully believe that Dems foresee they will win in Nov. and in 2008 and feel they will be able to alter the bill at that time from a position of strength that they just do not have now.

[blm]

119. And here is Kerry's OWN statement - he intends to keep tweaking it where

needed. Just as I expected.


Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the course of this week, the Senate has had a series of votes on the PATRIOT Act conference report as well as on a bill amending the conference report introduced by Senators Sununu, Craig, Murkowski, and Hagel.

Last December, I voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. I did not cast that vote because I oppose reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--I supported the PATRIOT Act then just as I do now. I voted against cloture on the conference report because I believed that it did not adequately protect our civil rights and liberties. Supporters of the conference report believed that you had to choose between two extremes: taking a tough stand on terror and protecting our fundamental constitutional rights. I thought you could accomplish both at the same time.

On February 28, 2006, I voted against cloture on the Sununu compromise bill, S. 2271, vote No. 22, because of procedural measures taken by the majority to prevent Senator Feingold--or any other Senator--from offering amendments. Senator Feingold's four proposed amendments would have improved the Sununu compromise and addressed more of the concerns I had with the conference report. They would have, No. 1, ensured that section 215 orders to produce sensitive library, medical, and other business records would be limited to individuals who had some connection to terrorism; No. 2, ensured that judicial review of section 215 gag orders and National Security Letter, NSL, gag orders is meaningful; No. 3, sunsetted the NSL authorities after 4 years; and No. 4, required notification of sneak-and-peek search warrants within 7 days of the search rather than within 30 days. I believe that each of these amendments would have improved both the Sununu compromise bill and the conference report. Regardless of whether my colleagues agree with me on that, I believe the Senate should have been given the opportunity to vote on them.

On March 1, 2006, the Senate conducted a series of votes, both procedural and substantive on the Sununu compromise bill and the PATRIOT Act conference report. I voted to support the Sununu compromise. I also voted to proceed to the motion to reconsider the conference report, to proceed to the conference report, and to invoke cloture on the conference report because, in my view, the Sununu compromise and the conference report come as a package deal. I support the two taken together, and for that reason, I also voted for the conference report today.

I support the Sununu compromise bill because it makes some important improvements to the PATRIOT Act. First, it allows judicial review of a section 215 nondisclosure order 1 year after its receipt. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the Government to obtain business records, including library, medical, and gun records among other things. Under the conference report, recipients of these section 215 orders were subject to an automatic permanent nondisclosure order which would have prevented them from bringing any court challenge. Under the compromise, a section 215 nondisclosure order is now subject to judicial review.

Second, the conference report would have required recipients of National Security Letters, NSL, to identify their attorneys to the FBI. NSLs allow the Government to obtain, without a warrant, subscriber records and other data from telephone companies and Internet providers. The compromise removes that requirement so that recipients of NSL orders can seek legal advice without having to inform the FBI.

Third, the compromise clarifies that the Government cannot issue NSLs to libraries unless the libraries provide ``electronic communications services'' as defined by the statute. Thus, libraries functioning in their traditional roles, including providing Internet access, are not covered.

Even though this legislation does not address all of my concerns with the conference report, these compromise provisions are steps in the right direction and will be important components of the PATRIOT Act.

I am proud to support this legislative package and am pleased we have reauthorized and improved the PATRIOT Act. I believe there is still more work to be done and will work with my colleagues; such as Senator Feingold and Senator Specter, on further improvements. For example, in a perfect world the PATRIOT Act would provide for more meaningful judicial review of section 215 gag orders as well as NSL gag orders. There is no reason to have a conclusive presumption against recipients--one that can only be overcome by a showing of Government bad faith. Nor is there any reason to prohibit judicial review of those gag orders until a full year has passed. They should be immediately reviewable, and, if there are any presumptions, they should be in favor of the privacy rights being invaded rather than the Government doing the invading.

In a perfect world, the Patriot Act would require the subjects of section 215 business record disclosures to have some link to suspected terrorists. As I mentioned earlier, section 215 is expansive, and it allows the Government to obtain very sensitive, personal records. Simply requiring those records to be relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation, as the conference report does, is simply not enough. This standard will not prevent Government fishing expeditions.

And, in a perfect world, the PATRIOT Act would have required the Government to notify victims of sneak-and-peek searches--unannounced and secret entries into the homes of Americans--within 7 days as the original Senate bill did. The 30- to 60-day timeframe is simply too long. People have a right to know when the Government has been in their house, searching through their things.

Thus, I understand why some of my colleagues are disappointed with the compromise. They say that it does not go as far as the original Senate bill which was passed by unanimous consent, and they are right. But the fact is that the compromise does improve the original conference report. I believe the compromise was the product of good faith negotiations. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction. And I will continue to work with my colleagues so that we can create a more even balanced PATRIOT Act.

[napi21]

13. What does the final Patriot Act look like?

I know there was a lot of discussion about things that should be removed and some ammendments were adopted and some weren't. I think before we castigate everyone for voting for it, we need to know what exactly they voted for.

[KoKo]

22. There are REVISIONS which haven't been voted on yet....this is the first

vote to pass it and then the revisions will be voted on...but I'm not sure if it's today or next week.

[Mass]

30. Wrong - The revisions were voted yesterday.

[kybob]

26. exactly.

who does know, and understand what is in PAII or even the first.

[Mass]

17. What is crazy is that when it mattered, nobody cared

You could not even keep the PA threads from sinking.

and now that it is too late, the whiners are here.

[TayTay]

25. That is true

I put up threads on this and noted when Sen. Feingold was speaking on the floor and such. No interest. I noted that Sen. Feingold had diaries in which he talked about his problems with the Patriot Act. Nothing. Very little interest.

Now, at the end of all things, we get the complainers who never came out before. Sigh! I think this bill was the best they were going to get out of the 109th (Weaseal) Congress. There was very, very little public notice on any action to block the bill. Very little.

[radio4progressives]

28. I find that comment deeply offensive - deeply offensive.

I've been calling attention to the Patriot Act for five fucking years.

Clearly you consider warnings on the dessimation of our Civil Liberties and the Constitution - activities of "whining" - that compells me to conclude that you support such activities, whether or not you have thought it through to it's logical conclusion of FASCISM - I will not presume (unless you state otherwise) that's what you are supporting on a non-conscience level.

but you don't understand that simple truth, then you will not understand much else of importance to me.

edited to correct syntex errors

[TayTay]

33. No, Mass is saying that no one on DU cared

about this bill this year as it was being talked about on the floor of the Senate. And, now that it has passed, you only note one Senator who voted for it.

That is also wrong. As wrong as it is to pretend that you 'own' an issue and that others don't care about it or haven't thought it through.

[radio4progressives]

40. I see..

The objection is that I reported on a favored Presidential Candidate's vote on the Patriot Act, which i consider to be as significant as a vote to authorize the President Domestic Spying or Invasions and Occupations of other Countries that posed no threat to us and have nothing to do with our national security.

Although Biden is running for President, he isn't as popular here on DU as Kerry is. I think that's an important distinction. Boxer and Kennedy are not running for President in 2008. What does it mean to people here, when favored candidates would willingly relinquish through legislation what little actual civil liberties we have left?

that's an important issue to me. I think it's an important issue to others. I hope I'm not wrong about that.

[mzmolly]

43. What was MOST important was to work to defeat Bush by voting for

John Kerry in the GE. Did you? If not, I'm not interested in your list of priorities.

[radio4progressives]

46. I not only voted for Kerry in 2004 - I worked the Campaign on the

streets, door to door and on telephones.

Did You?

if not, I'm not interested in your opinions.

[mzmolly]

51. HELL YES I did.

:)

[radio4progressives]

55. Why is it necessary to constantly re-affirm my Credentials as a

Voting, Registered Democrat since 1972, and from a long line, multi-generational family ties to the party?

Why is it considered almost "unpatriotic" (seemingly) to ctitisize actions taken by the party leadership? What IS that about and why is it a constant here?

is there no legitmate right to make better our party?

to demand people act on principles that apply to the concerns of the entire nation, and the very doctrines which our democracy was based on?

[IndianaGreen]

65. Because they have no defense for their preferred candidate

so they resort to the same bullshit that Republicans often resort to in order to elicit blind loyalty.

Party labels don't mean anything anymore! A Democrat is just as likely to vote against the Bill of Rights and for war as a Republican. We must judge politicians for what they do, which often comes in crucial procedural votes such as the Alito cloture vote, and not on the vote that is reported by the dumb "Vote Smart."

Our Republic and our liberties are at stake here! The elites of both parties could care less about us!

[mzmolly]

70. Perhaps because you find so very little positive to say?

You'll have to examine the "whys" for yourself and see if you can figure out the reason you are questioned.

:shrug:

OF COURSE there is a right to make our party better, but one has to recognize and appreciate the good fight when they see it in order to do that.

[radio4progressives]

72. of course, there is so much positive to be said about the state of our

democracy today... what is the matter with me!

[mzmolly]

73. There is positive to be said about trying to take our democracy back.

We need to honor those who fight to do so.

[wiley]

75. I disagree with some of what you post

but you're cool with me. You don't have to re-affirm anything as a Democrat. We have diverse opinions. Keep it up!

[anotherbob]

123. Lighten up Spanky

I've been voting and supporting and campaiging for Kerry for ever, before that I was trying to end a war with him. You might want to stop patting yourself on the back for knocking on a couple of doors. What he did yesterday sucked and you have no right to feel superior because you care sooo much. As a veteran of civil disobediance, I've got to say that I'm sick and tired of the entitlement of my fellow travellers and the insufferable whine fest that every Liberal discussion inevitably turns into. Perhaps it's time for the Street Fighting Man generation of politicos to reassert ourselves. Because you all suck at this stuff.:banghead:

[Mass]

38. I object to your singling one senator, when some of the most

liberal senators voted like he did.

I also object to my senators's vote, but can only note that, when it was time to call to vote against this vote, before the recess, the only thing people were focused on here was the Hackett-Brown's vote.

It is TOO LATE TO WARN NOW. The time to act was two weeks ago, when the deal was struck and Reid and Durbin rushed to support it. You may or may not have been there at this point, but most people were not.

So, I am not going to blast my senator alone or let you blast him, while other very liberal senators voted like him. Your post was not about how everybody voted. It was specifically an attack on Kerry.

Do an attack on how MOST Democrats voted on the Patriot Act and I will agree with you, fully, that this vote is shameful.

[radio4progressives]

42. Ok.. I take your point.

Perhaps I should change the Subject table to say something like Democratic Senators voted in favor of ....? That would not be seen as an "attack"..?

[LynneSin]

20. Byrd voted for Alito

so I'm guessing maybe it's all relevant

[KoKo]

24. He just voted against Patriot Act. n/t

[ProSense]

27. Not everyone opposes this revised bill.

The ACLU understands that the bill has come a long way:

"The Patriot Act debate has come a long way, but there is still more that needs to be done to protect the rights of ordinary Americans," said Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy. "It is clear that there is building skepticism about the administration's approach to national security and civil liberties, and the ACLU and its bipartisan allies will continue to speak out in defense of all Americans’ fundamental civil liberties and constitutional rights."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/24295prs20060228.html

It can still be altered in the future. Just like Specter is trying to change the FISA law, which has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, but can be even more damaging. There are excellent laws on the books right now that Bush has no regard for.

On the other hand, Alito and Roberts are on the Bench for a lifetime.

The 42 Democrats who voted against Alito were not all committed to voting against this bill.

[radio4progressives]

50. There's a long story about the ACLU's position on this and it's never been

a principled one in my view - it was always based on politics, afic.

[neverevergivein]

39. Yeah, Patriot Act! I'm psyched!!!

And torture camps! Wooohooo. And spying!!! on us!!! YES, YES!!!!!

[lyonn]

41. Will this be the year that many incumbents will be voted

out no matter what party they belong to? I'm talking clean sweep type voting. Disgust may take over the voting scene. We have too much dead wood in Congress. How about some real fights on the floor of the House and Senate for a change.

[second edition]

44. I trust Kerry's judgment on this. As President he would have to

make some tough decisions like this one in order to protect us.A majority of Dem's voted the same way, I would bet not so much because they liked it the way it is now written,but because it does contain some changes they can accept temporarily.

[IndianaGreen]

59. You people are so cavalier with our Bill of Rights

You deserve the dictatorship you got!

I grief for the Republic!

[earth mom]

91. Gotta step in here and agree with you!

:cry:

[Catrina]

130. Me too ~ I wish that when others decide their civil liberties are not that

important, that it didn't affect the rest of us. If that were the case, I'd say 'go ahead, more laws will really, really stop a terrorist' just so they could suffer under what this country would be like if it weren't for those who have fought these abuses every step of the way.

The fact is that we did NOT need the Patriot Act. Every single intelligence person and terror expert, ie , John O'Neill, Colleen Rowley, Wright et al, had the tools they needed and used them to identify threats. What was wrong was that they were STOPPED from doing what was necessary ~ and if this cabal decides we are not behaving right, I have no doubt that this Patriot Act will be about as effective as all the laws that were in place when 9/11 happened.

I am stunned at the acceptance of this attack on civil liberties, and the rationale that somehow this piece of legislation will save us all from terrorism.

Whatever happened to 'live free or die'? In Kerry's statement, I just read a really disturbing sentence about an aspect of this law I was NOT aware of. Apparently your house can now be entered without your knowledge and searched ~ and you will not know about it. Kerry isn't happy that you will not know about it, he wants that part ammended so that we'll eventually be told that strangers were roaming around your house without your knowledge.

So, now they're listening in on our phone conversations, reading our letters and emails, they're checking what books we take out of the library ~ we've got torture and pre-emptive wars and gulags, and our democratic senators talk about this in a nice soothing way to make it palatable to us???

I prefer the Republican way, at least I know where they're coming from. I wonder how often the German people convinced themselves that 'well, it's probably necessary for our national security, I don't really like it, but if my favorite politician says we need it, I suppose we shouldn't be too upset'.

Maybe it's time to find another place to live. This country is sinking further and further into fascism every day, and the so-called 'opposition' isn't putting up much of a fight. The headlines tonight were 'Bush Gets Much Needed Victory With Passage of the Patriot Act'. That's what we like to hear, Bush gets his way, one more time!!

Maybe the best thing is to let it all happen ~ let it get as bad as it can, and will if we let it. Maybe that's what it will take before this country wakes up. Maybe it's best to hurry it up and get it over with ~ all we're doing is delaying it, and meantime the people are asleep. Little by little they're accepting more and more infringements on their liberties. We don't need any terrorists ~ fear and partisanship will their job for them. Right now I'm more afraid of this government, both parties, than I am of any terrorist ~ when everyone feels that way, then maybe, things will change.

I'm going to read the book 'They Thought They Were Free' ~ I have a feeling a lot of it will be very familiar ~

[windbreeze]

132. The Problem with that line of thinking....is that

It is NOT the govt's job to protect us...What they do swear an oath of allegiance to...is to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION....IF they honored their oath, they would be protecting us.....but as it is, what they say and what they do, are two entirely different things...The PA...is a bunch of bullshit...and ALL DEMS should have voted against it...from the getgo, way back in 2001 (but from what I remember, D's even helped author it, right?)..so there are NO free passes on this...how can we sit here and agree that any measure of the PA, is OK?????..then whimper about how we hope that down the road someone will/might be able to change it for the better...when in fact, IT should NEVER have been written, it should NEVER have been voted upon...it should NEVER have become law...PERIOD!!! and unfortunately, the R's did not, nor do they continue to force this upon us, by themselves...
windbreeze

[radio4progressives]

45. The point is looking for real leadership on matters of consequence on this

magnitude. Kerry flew back to lead a filibuster against Elite-o, Feingold and a number of Democrats joined him (what was the count 22?) but there were too many Dems that refused to vote against Cloture - there was back room chair shuffling - a shell game, dog and pony operation going on - we all know the outcome - but Kerry earned some creds and esteem for that action none the less. For some of us who were secretly hoping that he would lead a trail blazing charge to re-establish credibility and principle in our party - we applauded him for that.

the critism of Feingold's vote for Roberts and Ashcroft misses an important set of principles that Feingold operates on.. I believe that he could not vote on principle against Roberts because the paper trail of rulings and opinions was never presented for scrutiny or simply did not exist, (white house wouldn't turn over) but none the less - I was disappointed with that vote. I felt that there was plenty of cause not to vote for him and he has expressed regret for it. (too late)

As for Ashcroft, well.. I mean Boxer voted in favor of Negroponte - knowing that he lead Death Squads in South America during Reagan's administration.. she none the less received accolades from me personally and millions of others during the "Boxer Rebellion" ..

They all make incredibly stupid mistakes .

But when it comes to personal Liberties, i think this rises to a certain level deserving very serious concern.

[zulchzulu]

48. I don't agree with Kerry on this...but still find him very trustworthy

If anything, Kerry and others put sunset provisions in the so-called "Patriot Act".

I feel the Act should be renamed to the "We're Sorry Founding Fathers Act". That would be more accurate.

[radio4progressives]

52. "We're Sorry Founding Fathers Act"

Absolutely, that is really brilliant! Did you just make that up? May i borrow the phrase, I'm happy to give credit?

[zulchzulu]

54. I did just make it up...although I've thought about it a long time

Jefferson would be crying if he heard what we have been doing...

Go ahead and use it...

[radio4progressives]

57. So too would James Madison and Tom Paine

These two we owe the Bill of Rights to. It's only taken 219 years or so to eliminate the Bill of Rights, or at least one of the most important protections as provided in the 4th amendment.

Done in a single vote.

[Mass]

53. For those who care, here is the roll call

Disappointing, I agree.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029

10 NAY votes

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR

[radio4progressives]

58. A terrible disappointment..

I weep for the death of our liberties on this Second Day of March, in the year of 2006.

the day that Liberty Died in America.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Fuck him! Russ Feingold voted against it!

We got our hero!

[LittleClarkie]

60. For the moment.

He'll be yesterday's socks the next time he votes for a nom people don't like. Kerry pushed the Alito filibuster, so he used to be our hero. Now he's yesterday's socks. Boxer stood up on Jan. 6th, but I've seen threads about her and a call to action from her sink like a stone on these boards. She too is yesterday's socks.

I myself don't ride the rollercoaster and I'm not looking for a hero. Feingold is a good man, regardless of his vote for Ashcroft and his fight against the Pat Act. Kerry is a good man, regardless of his fight against Alito or his vote for the Pat Act. Boxer is a good woman, regardless of voting for the Pat Act twice.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Feingold was among those that filibustered Alito

and he was the only Senator to vote against PATRIOT, and he won't take any shit from the GOP like Kerry did in 2004, and he is not corrupted by money like Hillary is.

Right now, the only people I oppose for the nomination are Hillary, Bayh, and Biden (because of their records, not just this one vote).

Kerry is okay.

[JNelson6563]

113. You're such a buzz kill!

This thread is to discourage support for Dems and to make them all out to be pure evil. That way we all leave the party and join up with those who do little more than sit in their own poop and cry. Misery loves comapny I suppose. Lots and lots of company. ;-)

Julie

[blm]

133. Wonder why Feingold rarely stepped up when it was needed on

major issues like CIA drugrunning or DSM?

Did he ever craft anti-terror legislation? Some of the work that was crafted by Dems in the 90s was put into the Patriot Act because it is NEEDED. BushInc added onerous crap to a bill they knew was NEEDED and they took advantage of it.

Seems to me that Feingold and amost other Dem agree on 90% of the bill, but Feingold decided that the 10% he doesn't agree with is worth a vote against while those Dems who don't agree with that 10% of the bill decided that the 90% was too needed to vote against.

A Dem will take office in 2009 and use the bully pulpit to reshape the act, leaving out the more onerous parts. The bill will pass just as senate passed it last fall, including Feingold, because many Repubs wanted the changes, too.

[LittleClarkie]

61. Will you be starting a thread for the rest of the aye votes?

Or was he the only one?

[Disturbed]

63. The Bush Regime will do what it wants to do.

No laws will stop them from doing anything they feel like doing. Isn't that real obvious, by now?

[radio4progressives]

64. Here's a link (posted up thread)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

10 NAY votes

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR

[fedupinBushcountry]

105. Congrats on this ONE vote

BUT in this list I see votes for the Bankruptcy bill, Alito, Roberts, ANWR, Gonzalez, Rice, Energy Bill, etc.

Did I like their votes on these things, NO, but I would never start a thread on ONE of them for just THEIR vote, just because they are not who I support.

This crap is getting ridiculous, and we need to think about '06, or we may as well forget about '08. :banghead:

[Catchawave]

66. Our 2008 nominee will come from

...outside the Beltway if we're to win. I mean, com'on, if you vote against the PA, you're with the terrorists(per Rove), if you vote for the PA, you piss off about 80% of your base :sarcasm:

[radio4progressives]

67. That might be Gore.. He would win in a landslide despite the MSM

and i would vote for him in heartbeat...

[Catchawave]

69. Let's see what kind of message the voters

send us this fall ! If our Dems don't win their local elections by HUGE landslides, I really don't want to go back to ABB politics, which Kerry and Gore were :(

Then again St. Reagan had one of the major comebacks of the last century, so I'm never saying never.

I love all our Dems, but I want our apathetic (so what?) voters and Republicans to love our candidate too. :hi:

[karynnj]

94. The ABB stuff is nonsense

Nobody knew enough to vote for Gore only to stop Bush - and there wasno talk of it. In 2004, it is true that a huge number of people were going to vote against Bush well before they knew any of the candidates.

How would you categorize someone like me. I was against Bush for the tax cuts, marched in DC and NYC against the war and have voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate since 1972. (I came very close to voting for Anderson as I liked many of his positions and I have a relative who lived in his district who knew he was a good guy. I voted for Carter because I knew that only he or Reagan could win.) From that profile, you know I would have voted for any Democrat, including Al Sharpton - who I had problems with. So, I guess I was ABB.

In 2003, I knew I wanted Dean or Kerry. After reading about both, I still went back and forth. As the debates started and I read Tour of Duty, I realized that there was no candidate I ever felt more in agreement with than Kerry.

In every election, there are people very very likely to be Democrats (or Republicans). If you can't get that that was a MSM line designed to diminish Kerry, I'm sorry. Kerry won the primaries more easily than almost any non-incumbent in my memory. If Edwards (your favorite) would have won, I would have voted for him. I did not think he had the stature, the background, or the gravitas the Kerry had - but I wouldn't have gone around saying "I'll vote for Edwards, but I'm ABB". I've had candidates I wasn't thrilled with - Carter (80) and Clinton (92). I managed to get excited when Clinton won and disappointed when Carter lost.

[politicasista]

68. So did other Democrats n/t

[leftofthedial]

71. we need no more proof

the list of yes voters on this is the list of "dems" who need to be purged.

[LittleClarkie]

74. Kennedy? Boxer?

You'd purge all but 10? And not even 10 well known ones at that, aside from Feingold?

Durbin? Reid? Dodd?

Were you ready to purge Byrd after his Alito vote? He voted against the Pat Act. Does that redeem him? Or do we add him to the purge list.


Otherwise I have the same answer I always do. Don't care who you "purge" really as long as a Democratic butt is in the seat when you're done. There had better not be a Repub butt there instead, or I will be quite peeved.

[leftofthedial]

76. yep

they hate freedom, democracy and freedom and learned nothing from their previous collaborations with the fascists

I spit on them

[LittleClarkie]

78. As for the other half of my post, you'd replace them with who?

do you have some progressives and/or Democrats in mind? Or are you content to let the Repubs have the rest of the seats too?

[leftofthedial]

79. I'd vote for my dog before I'd vote for a fascist

Hell, I'd vote for YOUR dog before I'd vote for a fascist

anyone who supports the "patriot" act is a fascist.

[LittleClarkie]

81. Once again, who are you going to put into the seats you're purging

While I'm sure your dog has tons of charisma and such, I doubt he's win a national election.

I'm asking what I would consider a practical question here. It's all well and good to shout "throw the bums out". But then what? I didn't ask you to vote for these people. I asked you what your alternative is. That is not rhetorical. What is your alternative. Because you DAMN well better have one.

[leftofthedial]

83. we move down the list of eligible democrats until we find one

who is not a fascist and who is not bought and paid for by the same corporations that are selling america to the lowest bidder.

If the first one we find is my dog, so be it.

[leftofthedial]

77. Byrd is as one dead to me

he loves his corporate constituents more than he loves America

he's a fascist bastard

just because he occasionally makes an articulate noise doesn't save him

every posturing syllabic spew about the constitution that issues from his wrinkled old lips is a lie. His Alito vote proved it.

[LittleClarkie]

82. So... out of curiousity... how many dead politicians populate your world

at the moment?

Does anyone meet your standards of purity? Even Feingold voted for Ashcroft.

[leftofthedial]

84. my standard is fascist versus non-fascist

pretty fucking straightforward, and it has nothing to do with "purity."

[LittleClarkie]

85. Straightforward? No. Skewed, I'd say.

Please tell me you're not a "dime's worth a difference" person in regard to Dems and Repubs, ala Counterpunch and Ralph Nader. I fear you're standing too far off to one side to see the space between someone like George Bush, and someone like Teddy Kennedy.

I would also say that if you would call everyone from Kennedy to Boxer to Kerry a fascist, then you've never actually seen a true fascist.

Kind of like calling everyone a Nazi. It tends to lose it's power the more you apply it. Rather like cry wolf. Someone who's grandparent had been in a Nazi camp commented that those of us in American have no idea at all what real fascism or a true Nazi looks like. If we did, we wouldn't throw the words around in so cavalier a fashion.

[leftofthedial]

86. sadly, there is almost exactly a dime's worth of difference . . .

I will not vote for a fascist.

I already lost faith in your boy Kerry when he quit right on (Rove's) cue in 2004. This is just more confirmation.

Until a true opposition to the corporate takeover of America rises, the current downward spiral will continue. "Dems" who vote for fascism, which is institutionalized more explicitly in the "patriot" act than in any other document or issue, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I've known actual bona fide original German Nazis. I've lived in totalitarian states. I've now seen the corporate takeover of our country, a development virtually indistinguishable from fascism in the 1930s.

Tell me why I should support any politician who votes for the evisceration of the Bill of Rights and the near-deification of the Executive Branch. Give me one good reason.

[earth mom]

92. Great Post-I agree with you!

Some people around here need to wake the hell up and stop the hero worshiping. :eyes:

[blm]

116. Dump the lawmaker who WROTE the Clean Elections bill? That is just NUTS.

Or desperately uninformed about who is a corporatist and who isn't.

I'd still like to see the name of the one lawmaker you believe has investigated and exposed more government corruption and financial industry corruption than John Kerry has.

[radio4progressives]

87. Fascism as in Mussolini - where it all began ..

But since you brought up Nazism - doesn't history teach us how the Nazi State or the Third Reich rose to power? Doesn't it teach us, that civil liberties were not tossed out in a day or a week or all at once?

Doesn't it teach us that it was over a period of about decade or even a little longer before the atrocities leading up to the holocaust actually began? Do i need to post links to the stories of and renditions and disappearances - we know thousands of people are imprisoned and brutally tortored and killed, all over this world in our name?

We know this, yet in our "get out the vote" frenzy campaiging we've all but forgotten all of this, or it's irrelevant somehow.

We've been five years leading up to the point of where we are now - wide spread Domestic Spying has been only recently revealed, but actually began not after 9/11 - NO! It began the moment these people took over the white house in January of 2001. It took them nine months to launch 9/11 - and everything else fell into place for them.

I could go on, but do i really need to?

Now please please please tell me, in all seriousness, all things considered - surely you do not really believe we are engaging in some sort of scatter shot hyperbolic activity? (my words)

[LittleClarkie]

88. I guess I was speaking not in terms of

the direction we're heading, as in headed for fascism. I can see where people are coming from in that regard. But to call what we have right this very minute a fascist state, and to call Bush a Nazi, and a bunch of liberal Dems fascists is to diminish history. We may be headed there, but we ain't there yet. And surely you wouldn't call everyone from Boxer to Kennedy to Kerry a fascist. Calling them thus is ludicrous And yes, that would be hyperbole.

Are we pointed in the wrong direction, and can we see a fascist state waving at us down the road? Yes. Even some Conservatives who can see that, so it must be pretty blatant. However, would someone who lived through Nazi Germany or in any other fascist state say that what they experienced is even remotely akin to what we're experiencing now? Nah.

But we weren't talking about what George Bush is doing to the country. We were talking about Democrats, including some very liberal ones. Surely you wouldn't point at most of these folks are call them fascists.

[radio4progressives]

89. Granted..

I don't personally see the Dems as fascists per se, at least not conscientiously - i see a few of them as blind enablers.

How will we know before it's too late, when we're there for certain?

And by then, won't it be too late to do anything about it ourselves?

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. My father is a survivor of the Holocaust

he'd disagree with your statement for the actions of the CURRENT government remind him of teh EARLY years. I have a friend who survived Aushwitz... and again she is reminded of the early years of Nazi Germany. Perchance they have seen a Nazi close up... and you have not.

[radio4progressives]

122. Have you listened to Polish Holocaust survivor Philip Markowitz?

he's being interviewed (in a series of broadcasts)on Mike Malloy's show - last night was the first - you can access that program at White Rose Society... just as point of interest.

edited to correct name..

[Dr Fate]

80. I'm very dissappointed in all the yes votes. n/t

n/t

[Nutmegger]

90. All the votes disappointed me

Do I hate Kerry now? Of course not, that's insane.

Couldn't stand LIEberman before and still do right now. :7

[radio4progressives]

95. It Was just announced that the PA goes Back to the House?

:wtf:

At the conclusion of his broadcast, Jim Lehere on PBS News Hour stated that the PA was going back to the House, but i think he made a mistake.. other reports says it goes straight to the President to be signed into law.

so now i'm confused.. ?

[ProudBlue08]

96. I believe that's correct

the House has yet to vote on the civil liberties provisions that were passed yesterday. Once they are passed by the House, it will go to the President and be signed into law.

[leesa]

97. No surprise there. Mr Corporation voting against Americans.

[LittleClarkie]

98. What about Kennedy and Boxer, et al

Would you say the same about them?

[karynnj]

102. Mr Corporation????

I assume you mean Kerry, given the OP, but that charge absolutely carries no truth. Kerry is nearly alone in accepting no PAC money since he first ran for the Senate in 1984. He and Wellstone were the sponsors of the Clean Election Act. If you read his 1997 floor speech on that bill you would see that he was for eliminating the power of corporations and the superwealthy to influence elections.

[AtomicKitten]

107. truth? they don't need no stinkin' truth.

[blm]

115. Can you explain your reasoning about calling him Mr. Corporation? That

just doesn't seem to match with his lifetime record against corporate pac money, his Clean Elections bill with Wellstone, and his lifetime record being tops in Congress for pro-environmet and pro SMALL business.

[NVMojo]

103. WTF????

[LittleClarkie]

106. All but a handful voted for it.

Not sure why Kerry is being singled out exactly.

[autorank]

110. The Senate is ALL about preserving power and privilege.

These folks are almost, to a person, very wealthy to obscenely wealthy, neither of which are bad things unless your wealthy by genetic accident AND you tout free enterprise, hard work, etc. That's always amusing to hear at first but becomes tedious very quickly.

The Patriot Act is unreadible in its printed form. It's a set of modificaitons of other laws. I for one, a bit lazy mind you, object to not being able to understand an important law within the confines of that law.

Essentially the act empowers the police against ALL people, not just the terorists Bush and the Republicans are creating at a furious pace in Iraq and elsewhere.

Every Senator who voted for renewal did so knowing that he or she would never be subjected to the provisions of the act. We can't say the same.

We employ these people but they don't view it that way. They remove the government further and further from the will of the people; and by government I mean the governing class. What goes on now in Congress has little or nothing to do with governance (helping the group and individual in the nation) or the Constitution, our governing document (which by the way, can be read as a complete, coherrent document).

[karynnj]

124. Gee - No one told me about the Senator exclusion clause

"Every Senator who voted for renewal did so knowing that he or she would never be subjected to the provisions of the act. We can't say the same."

Any Senator can forsee a time when he or she is out of office and they are a private citizen.

[thecai]

111. They Drank The Kool-Aid?

Are they brainwashed, implanted, or WHAT?

[cyberia]

112. Of course he did

What do you expect? Kerry's only quibble about the Iraq invasion was that he thought he could have done it better than Bush. Face it, with the exception of a small rump group, the progressive caucus, there are no Democratic representatives or senators who represent the base. They are bought and paid for by big business. Remind me why I should vote for these people.

[karynnj]

125. Facts are nice things to learn

You may want to try it some day. Kerry spoke out against the war BEFORE it started and called for regime change here when Bush invaded. He did say he would never have used the authority as Bush did. At worse you accuse him of having been too honorable a man himself to think that a President would break all the promises and committments that Bush did (and that the press would have amnesia on the promises.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. The whole thing is a charade any more

BOTH parties believe we need this and damn the Consitution. BOTH PARTIES... got it? GOod.

[anotherbob]

120. Fiengold '08

They pretty much all did, the spineless shites. I'm already wearing my Feingold button and getting ready to rock. I never thought, being from Massachusetts, that I'd be embarrassed by both my senators, but here I am. Screw them and onward, as Barney Frank says, "Given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, people will choose the Republican every time." Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Obama (Barak we hardly knew thee) Feinstein, Dodd, etc are all dead to me now. Time to think Green. Check out this week's edition of The Onion for coverage of today's Democratic response. Nadar was right, there really is no difference...:wtf:

[radio4progressives]

121. Just in case people missed this...

I posted a report on the "Senate votes on USA Patriot Act legislation - Feb 2 thru March 2, 2006" for a more comprehensive look at the voting process ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2490986

[Alexodin]

129. My Senator Harkin voted nay

My other Senator, Grassley, canceled Harkin's vote. Just like Grassely always does. This leaves everyone in Iowa negated every time.

Two Senators = zero representation.

[fujiyama]

131. I have the same odd mix

Levin (who kicks ass) voted nay, while Stabenaw (who is up for election) voted yea.

I'll still vote for her (I don't want a puke takin the seat), this is disappointing.

[ChipsAhoy]

134. There's a locked thread around here ------------

------ that speaks of those of us who are so peeeved about our party. YES, I'm included in that and I'm no party sell out. The party sold ME out. I have volunteered countless hours in the last two elections and sent out how many checks ---- and now NOBODY wants to represent me.

AGAIN, I say -- I feel like a player without a damn team.

HMMMpppppffff! And all the times I defended Kerry!! I get more upset with each passing day.