CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
June 18, 2008 – 12:57 p.m.
Blue Dogs’ Resistance Could Force Compromise on Surveillance Bill
A potential revolt by a group of Democrats pressed party leaders into compromising on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules that could come to a House vote by week’s end, a top Democrat said Wednesday.
The legislation is still being written, said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., but he said negotiators are working on an “improvement” over a White House-backed, Senate-passed bill that has support from some House Democrats.
“We’re very close” to a final agreement, he said, noting the bill could be on the floor as early as Friday.
Sources familiar with negotiations said the compromise legislation, a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, would allow a federal district court to decide about providing retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their role in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program.
Under the prospective deal, the secret court created by the original law would get to review, in advance, the process by which the administration chooses foreign surveillance targets who may be communicating with people in the United States.
Asked why Democrats don’t put aside the surveillance legislation until a new president is elected in November, Hoyer said he would prefer to do so, but can’t because so many House Democrats are prepared to vote for the Senate bill that he and other top House Democrats oppose.
“Clearly enough Democrats have indicated in the House they would vote for the Senate bill if it came to the floor. The alternatives are either the Senate bill or a bill significantly better” reached through negotiations with the Senate and the White House, he said.
House Democratic leaders have been keeping conservatives in their party at bay all year. In January, 21 members of the Blue Dog caucus wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., expressing their support for the Senate legislation, a large enough contingent to pass the Senate legislation if they voted with Republicans on a version of the bill.
Comments
Of course Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) could simply wait for a new administration. But he has chosen not to. He has been working on this legislation in secret with Rep. Kit Bond (R-MO), which he until recently denied was happening but now admits. His actions have been opposed by a wide range of organizations including the ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation. We can safely say that there is no uprising from his constituents to support such a thing---quite the opposite. The only possible reason for Rep. Hoyer supporting telecom immunity (or its de-facto substitute: a FISA court review) in the teeth of such opposition is that he is fulfilling the demands of the telecom companies and the Bush administration.
Once again the spineless Democratic Party caves in, rather, than fight to the end on principle, and maybe lose.
Gotta love being a democrat, especially when those gutless members of congress cave on every issue of principle. Crap like this makes me want to become an independent
Dems cave, but to the Blue Dogs in their own party. We need to rid ourselves of these jokers.
Blame whomever you want. It's the Democratic leadership's fault. The simple and plan fact of the matter is that without the Democratic leadership agreeing to bring the bill to the floors of both chambers for a vote, the Blue Dog Democrats could whine all they want - there would be no vote. Stop the farce. Stop the charades. Stop providing excuses for the enablers. For some reason, they've sold their souls to the telecoms. Anyone curious what Hoyer's getting for agreeing to the "compromise" -- free phone service for life? A promise that he won't be tapped? A promise that the telecoms will never do it again (unless they're asked really nice and given lucrative government contracts)? Seriously, what was the payoff.
'blame the Blue Dogs' my ass - this was all up to Harry and Nancy, they have control period and why in the hell hasn't Obama made either a public or private move as now head of the Party to get these Cheney enablers to back away from lawlessness ?
Let's retire the term "Blue Dogs" and call them what they are, Bush Dogs.
Cliarice is exactly right. And, while Steny is getting much of the heat, what about Pelosi? Is she worried that she could get intangled with the warrantless wiretapping portion of Kucinich's articles of impeachment, since she's part of the gang, as Minority Leader, that had access to special intelligence briefings?
Well gee, if those "Blue Dogs" are so all-powerful, could we get them to whine about the impeachment resolution that's bottled up int he HJC? "Complaints by Blue Dogs" my ass!! Of COURSE the leadership controls the agenda. And why should the agenda for the entire country be set by some Neanderthals who just happen to have a "D" next to their name, even though they vote with the Republicans most of the time. (Are you listening, Obama, re Barrow?) Let the Blue Dogs go down. After November there will be additional Democrats such that their numbers won't matter. And they never did vote with the majority anyway. Good riddance!!!
I didn't realize the Blue Dogs were allowed to schedule floor action.... Oh wait, that is Mr. Hoyer's job. And he is so spineless that he is both caving in and denying that he is doing it.
CONSIDER: If the Bush/Cheney Administration had the ability to wiretap anybody freely for a few years without FISA-type restrictions, who is to say that they didn't collect DIRT ($-corruption, sex acts, drug use, etc) in this fashion on a few prominent Congressional types (blue Dems or otherwise) and are now getting their cooperation on this issue? It's not a new idea; J Edgar Hoover did it. How do you think he stayed in power forever while hated by everybody? An Administration as corrupt & amoral as this one would find this blackmail technique easier than torture...which they found VERY EASY to rationalize.
At this point, I'm so sick of Democrats, I don't even know what to do with myself. I need to find a party led by someone of substance who will not allow this to happen even if he or she or they have to reject the supplemental until this retroactive immunity is separated from it. Perhaps the Senate Dems could stand up this time, if it weren't for the Blue Dogs!
If it weren't for the blue dogs; the congress would be republican. We need blue dogs; they are the conscience of the party, the way Democrats used to be, strong on defense, socially liberal, and control the budget. Yellow dog democrat. Eastern NC
It seems that the REPUBLICANS knew quite well how to NOT bring bills to the floor when they didn't want them brought to a vote. So, what's happening with Pelosi??? Does she and the Dem leaders really think we're such fools as to believe their lame explanations about being help hostage by the blue dogs in our own party? Come on now!!! This is another corporate sell-out and another abrogation of congressional responsibility.
Money talks and the telecom companies have plenty to donate to their campaigns. The only way to stop it is to take money out of elections. We the people not we the businesses. Nothing like buying and electing your own personal henchmen for congress.
Wake up America before its too late!! Let the voice of the people be heard loud and clear- WE DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT RUNNING OUR HEALTHCARE PERIOD!!!! What has the government ever been involved in that doesn't turn out a huge mess? Please people before its too late- write your congressman and plead for our rights- no Obama Healthcare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: