Saturday, October 27, 2007

Hillary's Silence on the FISA Bill Speaks Volumes

There seems to be no end in sight for Hillary and the Democratic party. She is our new savior just as Al Gore (the old Al Gore) and John Kerry were in the last election cycles, though all of them are virtually the same vanilla taste we have had that gives us nothing in return. Yet, we cling to it.

A piece at the Huffington Post lends a clear eye to what is happening with our democratic party, our leader and our front runner. I say OUR because the democratic party should stand for the people. It used to in the days of Roosevelt and even Johnson (domestically). But, Bill Clinton changed that with the on-set of the centrist organization the Democratic Leadership Council and the swing to the middle by Democrats along with ties to multinational corporations that was unheard of before Clinton.

While I digress, let me make my point here. The new eavesdropping Bill (FISA) is already a compromise for civil libertarians (or what we used to call Americans), but the repugnant piece of the bill is the retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that spied on us. They do not want to be sued for violating the constitution. So, what happened? Bush said I won't sign any bill that does not include such a measure. Jay Rockefeller (who so conveniently is funded by these companies by the bundle) said ok. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, said ahh what the heck. We been caving forever, this is nothing new.

But, Senator Chris Dodd (fast becoming popular among the left) put a hold on the bill. Any Senator is allowed to do such a thing and it is usually allowed to stand. But, Reid said: "We need to get things done on this bill." Evidently, as Jane Hamscher points out in her piece one of those things Reid does not feel he needs to get done is pass the Emmet Till cold case bill, which called for more money for unsolved civil rights crimes. Tom Coburn put a hold on the bill -- and Reid just let that one go. The bill died.

At least he is consistent right? Civil rights in any case is not that important to the democrats. So, Reid will ignore Dodd's hold and is planning to put the bill up for a vote. Dodd now says he will filibuster and already has promises from Kennedy, Feingold and Cardin to join. Obama says he is "concerned" about the bill, and said he will vote against it but has not yet joined the filibuster. If he is smart he will join. Hamscher indicates he will, but as of yet I have not heard a confirmation.

The strange silence, however comes from the Clinton camp. She put out a statement that said she is prepared to study the bill "very hard." And as Hamscher notes: But one question few are asking -- is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate? That makes Jay Rockefeller's contributions look like abject chicken feed. and Hamscher continues:

Mike McCurry and Jamie Gorelick, who both served in the previous Clinton administration, have been raking in money as telecom lobbyists (Gorelick has been providing "strategic advice" to Verizon about obtaining immunity). And Howard Wolfson -- currently a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign -- is a partner in Glover Park, who represent Verizon. No doubt they'll all have some s'plainin to do if Hillary joins Dodd in his filibuster -- as Barack Obama and Joe Biden have already said they would do.

Hillary Clinton has been hit hard by Edwards and Obama about the influence of special interests, but she has said "oh it doesn't affect my vote." As we all chuckle this is nothing to chuckle about. This administration broke the law and violated the constitution, the rule of law, what America is so proud to have ironed out over a 200+ year span. Yet, the Bush administration wants to give immunity to their buddies. Apparently, their buddies are Hillary Clinton's buddies too.

If her Iran vote doesn't scare you, then nothing will, but this is a "fuck you" to progressives everywhere. And if she is nominated we will get more of the same from her as we have gotten for several election cycles by democrats. They will talk a good game, but in the end are no better than their Republican counterparts. Sure, they may not want to blow up the world and start a WW III, but is that really what you want to vote for? Maybe that is her slogan for 2008 - I promise not to start WWW III.

My God how far have our standards gone? Read a great article on the Slept on website entitled "Where have all the liberals gone?" It explains what happened to the democratic party succinctly and accurately.

No comments: