Money Bomb

Good on the group who put together Accountability NOW PAC's money bomb yesterday, which netted over $150,000 in 24 hours, which isn't bad for a non-Presidential race. This money will be used to recruit candidates to take on those members of Congress who betrayed the Constitution and passed wiretapping legislation without accountability for lawbreakers. A few more of these and they could have a nice war chest to help restore some confidence to the rule of law.

This is particularly acute on a day when the FBI admits that it obtained reporter's phone records "accidentally". Mm-hm. Governments are simply not to be trusted with spying powers, no matter who is in charge of it.

Forget The Narrative

When I saw Newsweek's poll showing Obama with a huge 15-point lead in June, I thought it was an outlier. They've come back to Earth with a more modest 3-point lead, but instead of this being about Obama's epic crash or shift to the center, as some would suggest, the answer is massive sampling bias:

June:

231 Republicans sampled, 23%, 36% with "lean Republican" included
324 Democrats sampled, 38%, 55% with "lean Democratic" included
307 Independents sampled, 35%

July:

315 Republicans sampled, 28%, 42% with leaners
324 Democrats sampled, 35%, 47% with leaners
357 Independents sampled, 33%


Imagine that, when you poll the same number of Democrats, but 84 more Republicans (increasing their number by about 25%) and 50 more Independents, McBombBomb does better.

I think the first Newsweek Poll was pretty much overstating bullshit; and the second is almost a mirror image of bullshit.

One of the things I hope for which will never happen is that this whole country gets out of the narrative business to explain political action. If a poll confirms your personal suspicions it doesn't mean that the whole country agrees with you. If the opposite occurs, it doesn't mean the whole country disagrees with you. It means that polls have substantial variables, and people have idiosyncratic reasons for choosing candidates. I'd like it to be neat and say that x=y but this is simply too big a country for that. It's irresponsible to cherry-pick polls to satisfy your own pre-ordained narratives, and while this is how traditional media works, it's depressing to see the same in the blogosphere.

There has been a lot of big talk about Obama's lurch to the right or how lefty bloggers and civil liberties advocates are in hysterics or how Obama is not a liberal or a progressive and when he fails we shouldn't be blamed (which sounds like "Conservatism never fails, it's just never been tried" to me). There's merit in all of these and gross oversimplification in all of these, but ultimately this last paragraph from Digby's piece is right:

The question for all progressives remains what it always has been, in my view, from before and during the primary season and beyond. To the extent the American two party system allows, assuming we can get the most liberal politician available elected to the white house, what do we plan to do to make him actually govern progressively? I don't think our movement has thought enough about that and I think it's the only question worth asking.

Yes, this is the point. Obama is good on a lot of things and not so good on others. Understanding the impact of the judiciary on women's lives or the need for mass transit or the importance of bilingual education is far, far beyond what any national politician has emphasized in the past several decades. On the other hand, there have been very troubling positions, like FISA and mealy-mouthed rhetoric on abortion. He signaled his centrist intentions in very clumsy ways but I think he'll start signaling the other way pretty soon (in fact he already has). The point is how progressives can work together as a movement to ensure governance that is more than tinkering around the edges. Honestly that's where a lot of this is going to start. But I believe we are starting to build coalitions and institutions that are working toward this goal. The Get FISA Right group and the Accountability NOW PAC are two such examples. Also, what's being done by Obama supporters in a self-starting manner on the ground is far more important than an oversampled poll, and it's eventually what's going to allow for a pressure point on a Democratic President. Because the grassroots organizing being done by people empowered to do it themselves will not flame out after the election. It's built to last, and it's easily transferable from candidates to issues.

At the same time, we have to understand that the cauldron of politics ends up overheating everything, producing overreactions to the slightest data, and it's beneficial to step back and assess these things in a more calm manner.

Toast Your New Surveillance State Tomorrow

There is one day left before the Constitution is tossed out the window and President Nixon's refrain that "If the President does it, then it isn't illegal," is enshrined into law. Tomorrow the Senate will vote to cover up George Bush's illegal spying program, with a compromise that isn't a compromise, and grant immunity to both the telecom partners who aided in the crime and the Administration themselves, who will now be able to end their term with the peace of mind that the extent of their illegal spying on Americans will never see the light of day. This is a bipartisan effort, aided by a cynical Democratic leadership that is either implicated in the spying or willing to give their bretheren in the Establishment a break. Either way, the upshot is that core Constitutional liberties will be taken away tomorrow, and the rule of law will be reduced to nothing but a slogan.

The progressive movement and the new coalition that has built up around this and other issues of civil liberties won't win every one of these battles. We put up one hell of a fight, identified key allies and also those who side with the Establishment surveillance state, and we will move on from this stronger and more committed to making things right and holding those who betrayed their core responsibilities accountable. Glenn Greenwald has the seminal post up about where we stand. Accountability NOW Pac, which I have signed onto as a sponsoring blogger, put together a Washington Post ad just to let those scoundrels know what they'll be voting for tomorrow. In addition, there will be a money-bomb to raise funds for future efforts on August 8. You can pledge your donation at the Accountability NOW link.



I really don't have a whole lot to add to Greenwald's piece - he covers admirably the facts of how the Congress will, by this time tomorrow, have voted to immunize lawbreakers without even knowing the extent of the lawbreaking, and will have used fear, intimidation and lies to do it. He explains how this is a symptom of an unaccountable ruling class, and what we can do to fight back. I'll just add a few links of supporting material.

Here's Daniel Ellsberg, who knows a thing or two about illegal surveillance:


What Every American Needs to Know (and Do) About FISA Before Tuesday, July 8th from Tim Ferriss on Vimeo.

1. Why does the vote this Tuesday, July 8th matter to normal people who have nothing to hide?

Ordinary citizens who want to live in a democracy — including those with nothing to hide — should be concerned about the ability of the government to use private, sensitive personal information to blackmail, manipulate, and intimidate their representatives, journalists and their sources, potential whistleblowers, and activists or dissenters of any sort.

2. Couldn’t it be argued that this type of surveillance ability has prevented another 9/11 from happening? Isn’t it possible that this type of legislation has saved American lives?

The administration has claimed that is has, but without presenting a single piece of evidence that this is so, even in closed hearings to Senators with clearances on the Intelligence Committee. The FISA court has granted warrants in virtually every request that’s been made of it that has any color of helping national security. The administration’s decision to bypass that court, illegally, leads to a strong suspicion that they are abusing domestic spying, as some of their predecessors did, in ways that even the secret FISA court would never approve.

Here's Tim Lee explaining how telecom immunity is practically the least offensive aspect of this bill.

When it comes to judicial oversight of domestic-to-foreign calls, the legislation the House passed last month is an unambiguous victory for the White House and a defeat for civil libertarians. The legislation establishes a new procedure whereby the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can sign off on "authorizations" of surveillance programs "targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The government is required to submit a "certification" to the FISA court describing the surveillance plan and the "minimization" procedures that will be used to avoid intercepting too many communications of American citizens. However, the government is not required to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur. The specific eavesdropping targets will be at the NSA's discretion and unreviewed by a judge. Moreover, the judge's review of the government's "certification" is much more limited than the scrutiny now given to FISA applications. The judge is permitted only to confirm that the certification "contains all the required elements," that the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to target foreigners, and that minimization procedures have been established.

Crucially, there appears to be no limit to the breadth of "authorizations" the government might issue. So, for example, a single "authorization" might cover the interception of all international traffic passing through AT&T's San Francisco facility, with complex software algorithms deciding which communications are retained for the examination of human analysts. Without a list of specific targets, and without a background in computer programming, a judge is unlikely to be able to evaluate whether such software is properly "targeted" at foreigners.

(it's very hard to excerpt that piece because all of it is vital.)

And finally, here's Bradley Olson, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, who notes that FISA is just one brick in the wall of a lawless surveillance state.

With Congress on the verge of outlining new parameters for National Security Agency eavesdropping between suspicious foreigners and Americans, lawmakers are leaving largely untouched a host of government programs that critics say involves far more domestic surveillance than the wiretaps they sought to remedy.

These programs - most of them highly classified - are run by an alphabet soup of federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. They sift, store and analyze the communications, spending habits and travel patterns of U.S. citizens, searching for suspicious activity.

The surveillance includes data-mining programs that allow the NSA and the FBI to sift through large databanks of e-mails, phone calls and other communications, not for selective information, but in search of suspicious patterns.

Other information, like routine bank transactions, is kept in databases similarly monitored by the Central Intelligence Agency.

"There's virtually no branch of the U.S. government that isn't in some way involved in monitoring or surveillance," said Matthew Aid, an intelligence historian and fellow at the National Security Archives at The George Washington University. "We're operating in a brave new world."

We are well and truly screwed on tomorrow's vote. And as Olson notes, it's just part of a massive surveillance apparatus that has crept into our lives. But FISA is a rallying point. It wakes people up about the serious problem of unethical and criminal activity emanating from Washington. And it offers an opportunity to use this anger and frustration and energy toward political power. It's the only thing these guys will respond to, after all.

This fight is not over. Expect a lot more to come.

Barr!

Great piece on Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr, who's sick of the GOP Establishment and running on a platform of limited government. Barr has a built-in audience with the Ron Paul crowd, and if he taps into them he can cause a stir. I don't agree with him on a bunch of issues, but there are points of convergence on civil liberties, making us strange bedfellows. Bob Barr, of course, is strange bedfellows with the Bob Barr from Congress:

And some of its own members are asking how they ended up with Mr. Barr, who at the Libertarian Party convention in Denver last month squeaked by with the nomination only after six raucous rounds of votes.

“There certainly are still those,” Mr. Barr said, switching to the third person, “that may view Bob Barr as somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately.”

While libertarian philosophy generally bows to the rights of the individual — and against government intervention — Representative Barr voted for the USA Patriot Act; voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002; led the impeachment charge against President Bill Clinton in 1998; and introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

So there's, you know, that. If Paul were running in this space, with his more consistent record, he'd get 5%. I don't know about Barr.

Holding Pattern

Well, it looks like enough people pushed and pushed to get the FISA bill delayed through the recess on the 4th.

The Senate hit impasses over legislation aimed at helping struggling homeowners and a rewrite of spying laws, forcing Democratic leaders to push back consideration of those measures until next month.

Leaders had hoped to finish both measures this week, in addition to an emergency war-spending bill and a Medicare bill, before lawmakers return home by week's end. Both bills have wide support, but in each case, individual senators have refused to let the measures speed through the chamber. As a result, they were forced to lower the bar for this week's action.

Democrats also threatened to keep the Senate in session through the weekend if Republicans didn’t agree to move quickly with the Medicare bill.

Objections by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will push back an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) until after lawmakers return in July, Democratic leaders said Thursday. Feingold is strongly opposed to language that would likely give telephone companies that participated in warrantless surveillance retroactive immunity from lawsuits.

"It doesn't look like it," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said of taking up the FISA bill this week. "Sen. Feingold wants additional time and would like to postpone it until after the Fourth of July."

Durbin said: "We can't leave until we finish Medicare and the supplemental."

Looks to me like Jon Ensign and Jim DeMint called Harry Reid's bluff on the housing bill, so he pushed both of them back till after the break. Incidentally, the housing bill would give $15 billion in tax breaks to lenders like Countrywide, and parts of the bill may have actually been written by Bank of America, so I'm not exactly weeping for that delay either.

As I've been saying, it's completely unclear to me whether this is anything but a delay, and if the opportunity is given to pass the FISA bill before the recess, I'm sure the Senate will take it. When you have 80 votes in favor, it's going to be pretty hard to stop it. I would hope that Sen. Feingold and Sen. Dodd could be as annoying as Tom Coburn in holding up a bill, but that seems to only work for conservatives (100 freakin' bills with bipartisan support are being held up by Coburn, but Feingold and Dodd aren't able to stop one).

However, the delay does provide an opportunity to rally support for accountability. The Wall Street Journal today reports on the money-bomb for the Constitution being planned:

Liberal activists and supporters of the Texas Republican and former presidential candidate plan to join forces Thursday and begin a "money bomb" protest of lawmakers who support telecom immunity in the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. During a "money bomb," grassroots activists donate money during a short period of time -- usually a day -- to create buzz and raise money for their candidate.

The effort is timed to coincide with a planned Senate vote on the bill. Libertarians and liberal activists have blasted Democratic lawmakers, including presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, for supporting the legislation [...]

"There's entrenched power in Washington that protects itself and there are people on both sides who don't feel like they're having their rights protected," says Jane Hamsher, one of the organizers behind the effort and founder of the popular Democratic blog Firedoglake. "It's really about right and left coming together to fight the entrenched power and take their power away."

Damn straight. And I expect a host of angry constituents when the entrenched Senators come back to their states.

UPDATE: Feingold's statement:

"I'm pleased we were able to delay a vote on FISA until after the July 4th holiday instead of having it jammed through. I hope that over the July 4th holiday, Senators will take a closer look at this deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American people. It is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation."

And Dodd:

“I’m pleased that consideration of the FISA Amendments Act has been delayed until after the 4th of July recess. I urge my colleagues to take this time to listen to their constituents and consider the dangerous precedent that would be set by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that may have engaged in President Bush’s illegal wiretapping program.

“When and if FISA does come back to the Senate floor, I will offer my amendment to strip the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. I implore my colleagues to support the rule of law and join me in voting against retroactive immunity.”

UPDATE II: The contours of this are coming into shape. As emptywheel notes, there's been a unanimous consent agreement to hold votes on all amendments and the final bill on July 8. A UC agreement means no filibuster (UPDATE: Sen. Reid's office is saying that there will be another cloture vote, so there's a slim opportunity to filibuster), so we’d need 51 no votes on the bill to stop it, or 51 yes votes on the amendment to strip immunity.

I'm trying to figure out if any of those other amendments have the likelihood of passing, because that would at least send the bill to a conference committee. And maybe one of the amendments is a poison pill. Apparently Jeff Bingaman has an amendment for a stay on immunity until the Inspector General review about the wiretapping activities is completed. Here he is talking about it:

MP3

Getting from 15 to 51 in 12 days is, in a word, unlikely. But getting to 51 on staying the immunity provision is somewhat more likely; it's at least closer to a compromise. However, the bar has been set to 60 on that amendment.

Just One Of Those Throw In The Towel Days

Days like these kind of make me wish I hadn't written those 7,000 or so posts for the last four years. I mean, I had fun, but it amounted to an authoritarian takeover of government and nothing resembling hope on the horizon. We have a breakdown of the democratic system of government when a political party - the one in the majority - can be bullied into leaving the Constitution in a heap and giving up responsibility to stop the outrages of the Bush years, even when given a mandate to do so. In not wanting the trouble, they are setting a dangerous precedent - that an action is legal as long as the President SAYS it's legal.

And now the standard-bearer of the party, the man many hope will lead the nation and the world in the next eight years, fails to heed the call to reject this capitulation. It could be that he wants the power as President; most Presidents don't want Congress or the courts meddling into their business. It could be he just wants to get elected and doesn't want the trouble that us dirty hippies, who think the Fourth Amendment means as it reads, will provide. Obama is tightening up his access, anyway, at the same time as he calls for bottom-up movements for change, so walling himself off from liberals would fit. I like Obama on some levels and understand perfectly that the only candidate whose views align perfectly with mine is me. But this is a damn stupid move.

More than anything, this betrayal from a rotten-to-the-core Washington establishment just brings things into focus. Republicans as a name brand are screwed for a long time. The House Democratic leadership stinks on ice. But as Howie Klein notes, the leadership beneath them - the second tier - supported the Constitution today.

The movement that was formed in response to this betrayal, the coalition calling itself "Strange Bedfellows," has raised nearly $300,000, and is running full-page ads in the Washington Post calling out Steny Hoyer. You can give here.



There are Bush Dogs on everyone's list and that number will grow in 2008, and more in 2010. We all now know where we stand. There are about 120 Democrats in the House, and maybe 30 in the Senate. It is unacceptable and frankly obnoxious to think that some other Bush Dog like a Mark Udall, who voted for the FISA bill today, being added to the Senate would make any difference. I for one am devoting my energies solely to those who spoke out and who will not betray this movement and their causes. There are two reactions to this: disengagement or refocusing. I can only do the latter.

Keep Those Obama Phone Calls Coming

The FISA debacle could happen as early as Friday. Nobody has seen the final bill except the cretins who are moving it forward, including the lobbyists who wrote it. Because the scared bunnies at the DCCC are so worried about keeping power and saving their blessed freshman Dems from criticism (even though it won't), this bill has to be fast-tracked and pushed through under the dead of night.

And if you think that we only have to wait for Obama's election to end this kind of backroom dealing and lobbyist-written legislation, consider that he is trying to protect an incumbent who is one of the worst reactionaries in the Democratic caucus, who supports the FISA bill completely, who defines himself by total resistance to Democratic values, and who will not be an asset to anything resembling a progressive agenda:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has taped a radio commercial on behalf of U.S. Rep. John Barrow of Savannah, who faces a July 15 primary challenge.

It's the first case of Obama involving himself in a local race in Georgia.

Details of when the ad will start airing and where it will be broadcast - the 12th District covers much of east Georgia, including portions of Augusta and Savannah - were not immediately available Wednesday.

But the Obama campaign made clear to my colleague Aaron Sheinin that it sees Barrow, a two-term Democrat, as an important ally. We've got calls into the Barrow campaign, but haven't heard from them yet.

As Matt Stoller notes, this is part and parcel with Obama consolidating the party. He wants to do a favor for a conservative Democrat who might be in a position to return the favor for him. Regina Thomas, the progressive challenging Barrow, will support progressive values and doesn't need any favors, the logic goes.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

This is everything Obama claims so vehemently to oppose, claims he wants to end. And yet the Congress under the control of his party is about to enact a radical bill to legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunize telecoms who broke our country's laws for years. And not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger.

None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts. There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens -- either he's the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.

But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.

That's absolutely right. I called on Obama from the moment he clinched the nomination to shut down this FISA bill. It undermined his national security argument, trashed the Constitution, and delivered immunity to lawbreaking. Now he's not only indifferent to such calls, he's actively enabling those "Democrats" who would do the deed.

I guess you could become disillusioned and turn away from politics entirely, smugly tell everyone you know (and some you don't) that you were right all along and Obama's no saint (though I certainly never said he was). Or you can hold him accountable. The Strange Bedfellows coalition is building, having raised nearly $200,000 in a day, with more to come. We will stand up and demand our civil liberties and our Constitutional rights, and attack those politicians, from either political party, who seek to undermine them.

Rep. Hoyer, You're About To Be Money-Bombed

Steny Hoyer's pathetic lie about why he engineered a FISA bill that grants immunity to the telecoms and the Bush Administration is so laughably bad that you wonder how this guy ever got elected Majority Leader in the first place. He certainly wilts in the spotlight.

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.

“Many Democrats have indicated to me they are willing to wait as long as an alternative is in sight. If not, they are prepared to vote for the Senate bill,” Hoyer said.

That's just not factually correct. They all voted with the stronger House bill just a few months ago. They don't have the ability to vote for the Senate bill unless Hoyer and the leadership bring it to the floor. The discharge petition that would force the bill to a vote has been largely dormant for the past two months. It's just completely disingenuous for Hoyer to suggest he's controlled by the rank and file.

Glenn Greenwald reports that his efforts to hold Hoyer accountable for sanctioning lawbreaking are growing.

First, the amount raised in the last 24 hours is now a truly extraordinary $90,000 -- bringing the total for this campaign over $170,000. The more that number goes up, the more potent this campaign will be, the harder it will hit its deserving targets. Contributions can be made here.

The ACLU Press Release announcing this new coalition, which is being called "Strange Bedfellows," is here. We expect to announce numerous other additions to the coalition -- many quite significant -- very shortly [...]

As a result, our campaign will be unveiled in two phases, with Phase I to entail an immediate ad campaign aimed at three key Democratic enablers of this bill -- Hoyer, Chris Carney, and Blue Dog Rep. John Barrow of Georgia. The reasons for targeting Hoyer are self-evident and were set forth yesterday, and the campaign against Carney -- who has long bee one of the Blue Dogs spearheading the effort behind this bill -- is already underway and will continue.

Rep. John Barrow was, like Carney, one of the 21 Blue Dogs who signed the letter to Nancy Pelosi back in March demanding that they be allowed to vote on the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill. In July, Barrow faces a very credible primary challenger -- Georgia State House Rep. Regina Thomas -- who is much more in step with the district's Democratic base.

All good enough. Carney doesn't have a primary opponent, but to be honest, he can have his negatives increased so he's replaced by a Republican. Really doesn't matter a bit to me.

What Hoyer ought to be worried about comes next.

Phase II will involve a massive money bomb, to be planned by the same people who were behind the money bombs that raised millions and millions of dollars for the Ron Paul presidential campaign. The dates and other details for that will be announced shortly.

The plan there is to raise an extraordinary amount of money -- dwarfing the $90,000 raised in the last 24 hours -- by going to all of the various constituents of each member of this coalition in order to fuel a real campaign in defense of civil liberties, constitutional protections and the rule of law. The money raised will be used to oppose and punish those vulnerable members of Congress who continue to support the evisceration of our constitutional framework and core civil liberties, while supporting candidates and office-holders who meaningfully oppose that assault.

Like the ACLU said, it's Strange Bedfellows. But if citizens with different views can come together on supporting civil liberties and the rule of law, I enthusiastically support it. You can become a strange bedfellow here.

A citizen-led to use millions and millions of dollars attacking Steny Hoyer is something I can get behind.