Kudos to Senator Dodd for putting a hold on the Telecom Immunity Bill. The bill would give retroactive immunity to any telecommunications company that gave customer data to the Bush administration in its illegal domestic spying program.
As Shane notes, this is the right kind of "obstructionism." It's done out of principle, not politics, and was done so to help safeguard our individual civil liberties. Compare that to Bush's reason for using his veto recently:
Bush said his veto pen was "one way to ensure that I am relevant; that's one way to ensure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto."
"Veto ergo sum"?
The issue is clear. Because Congress is unwilling to prosecute the president for breaking the law, we need to leave other channels open to punish those that helped the administration with its illegal activities. Not only did some telecommunications companies turn over your personal records without a court order, they did it in order to receive juicy government contracts. They should be duly punished, and a message should be sent that there is a cost to abetting a government that curtails American liberties.
So what it comes down to is that the "hold" is simply a matter of "professional courtesy." I want a bill held, so I notify my party leader of my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to bring the bill to the floor. Implied in that is the hint that I will make everyone sorry they brought it up if they don't just give me what I want, and they know by now that any Senator can do that, so they might as well just go ahead and hold it, for the sake of everyone's sanity.
The whole post is definitely worth a read - but this passage is relevant in light of the latest news - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning to put the bill up for debate in mid-November.
This gives us about a month, folks. You know what to do. Drop Senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus a line letting them know that you oppose the Senate giving any telecommunications company retroactive immunity for handing over customer records to the government.
Today the Senate passed the Kyle-Lieberman Iran amendment, which designates the military of a sovereign nation as a terrorist organization - Iran's Revolutionary Guards. It's a bad idea, and clearly lays the groundwork for military action against Iran.
In one amendment, the Senate has rendered the word "terrorist" meaningless, and has thrown a monkey wrench into international diplomatic relations. It could also give the Bush administration legal justification to do anything it wants with, or in, Iran, without Congressional oversight or approval.
Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.
At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.
"I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice."
Here's the roll call. Jon Tester voted against the amendment; Max Baucus voted for it.
Odd, isn't it? Just this week, Senator Baucus' op-ed decrying the diplomatic and political situation in Iraq and calling for the withdrawal of US troops from the country appeared in newspapers around the state, and today he voted for an admendment that could embroil us in another - perhaps worse -- clusterf*ck than Iraq. You tell me how any rational person could hold onto those two thoughts at the same time. It's a mystery to me.
Other notable votes include those of Republicans Lugar and Hagel, who crossed party lines to do the right thing; Democratic presidential candidates Dodd and Biden who voted against the amendment, and Clinton who voted for it.
Fitting for both (post) Labor Day and John Edwards' visit, it's a good time to mention that Edwards won the endorsement of the steel and mining unions yesterday:
Wearing blue jeans and a windbreaker displaying the U.S.W. and U.M.W.A. logos, Mr. Edwards spoke for about ten minutes to union members and supporters who gathered outside the Mellon sports arena here. He used the opportunity to highlight his health care plan, trade policies and the issue of safety for mine workers in the wake of the Utah mine disaster.
"I promise you that when I am president of the United States we will not have a mine company executive who is responsible for the safety of mine workers," he said. "We will have somebody who actually understands what needs to be done to keep workers safe who are toiling in the mines every single day."
Of course Edwards isn't the only Democratic candidate to win union endorsement. Chris Bowers has the union endorsement scorecard. Chris Dodd is the big surprise on this list, having won the nod from the International Association of Firefighters, a big deal in post-9/11 politics, but Senator Clinton's also receiving a number of endorsements.
In a related presidential campaign politics, Senator Edwards has been going after typical inside-the-Beltway politics, calling our government a "rigged system" against working- and middle-class Americans and Hillary Clinton an eager participant in that system.
"From my time in the White House and in the Senate, I learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution," Mrs. Clinton said at an early afternoon rally in Concord, drawing a pointed contrast to the outsider messages of Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards. Referring to the Roosevelts and Johnson, she said, "They got big things done because they knew it wasn't just about the dream, it's about the results."
"I want to work within the system," Mrs. Clinton said. "You can't pretend the system doesn't exist."
Er...that's not very inspiring. Business as usual, eh Senator? Count me out. We need some serious reform to pry the dominance of corporations from our government, not Republican lite.
