June 23, 2008
The Democrats on the Hill are at it again, doing what they do best: capitulating, sucking up, caving in, selling out and providing lame excuses for this conduct. This latest round of misfeasance concerns the Congressional approval of what is being called the “FISA compromise bill”. This bill is also known as the “wiretap bill” and the “telecom immunity bill”. Last February, the Senate passed a version of this bill, giving the President broader, unchecked powers in ordering wiretaps on American citizens. The current bill, intended to be a compromise, falls far short of the expectations of those concerned with protecting the right to privacy. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin summed up the widespread frustration over this bill with the following statement:
And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.
Throughout his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Obama has assured us that had he been a member of the United States Senate at the time, he would have voted to oppose the Joint Resolution for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. That Resolution was passed because there were too many Democrats in Congress who believed a vote against the Resolution would make them appear weak on national security. It is that same fear of appearing weak on national security that is driving Democrats to vote in favor of the current FISA bill. Concern for appearing weak is itself a sign of weakness. Obama’s support for this bill, out of concern for appearing weak on national security, gives us a more honest view of how he would have voted on the use of military force in Iraq. His support for the FISA bill tells me that he would indeed have voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution. Although Senator Obama has promised to remove the telecom immunity provisions from this bill, nobody believes this could be accomplished. The telecom lobby has been driving this bill for the specific purpose of shielding that industry from lawsuits by American citizens, who became the subjects of illegal wiretaps. Instead of promising to remove the telecom immunity provisions, Obama should be asserting this position on the bill: “I am supporting this bill because, as President, I want to be able to tap the phones of my Republican opponents without court oversight.” He might be able to scare some Republicans into voting against this bill. That announcement might also give Hillary Clinton a strong reason to oppose it.
Obama’s stance on this bill is likely to do him more harm than good. MoveOn.org has started an e-mail campaign for its members to contact Senator Obama and demand that he stick to his earlier promise that he would support the filibuster of any bill providing retroactive immunity for telecom companies that participated in Bush’s unauthorized wiretap program. A more longstanding liberal organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, has also decried the impending passage of this bill:
More than two years after the President’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House.
Will Obama alienate his “base” by supporting this bill? He has promised his supporters “Change We Can Believe In”. What kind of “change” is it when a Democratic Senator facilitates yet another controversial assault on the Bill of Rights by the Bush Administration, out of fear of appearing “weak” on national security?
The Voting Begins
October 30, 2008
The long-awaited 2008 Elections are finally underway. According to the Early Voting Information Center website, 32 States allow in-person early voting. As the voting proceeds, we are seeing an enormous number of people opting to cast their votes before November 4. On Tuesday, October 28, Gary Langer (polling director for ABC News) reported that as of that morning, 9 percent of “likely voters” had already voted. As reported in the October 30 Washington Post, Michael McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University who compiles early-voting statistics, observed that his running total of early voters now tops 16.5 million. USA Today reports that approximately 25 percent of Georgia’s registered voters have already cast their ballots. In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist extended the hours for early voting. Prior to Crist’s executive order, Florida law allowed for early voting 8 hours per weekday and a total of 8 hours over the weekend. The polls in Florida will now be open 12 hours per day, through Sunday, the last day for early voting. The Miami Herald reported that prior to Christ’s signing of the order, the long, winding lines at the polling stations resulted in waits of as long as four hours to get to a voting machine. The Herald reported that as of Tuesday morning, 10 percent of the state’s registered voters had already voted. On Wednesday, October 29, Susan Saulny reported in The New York Times that there have been rumors circulating in Jacksonville, Florida’s African-American community that early voting could not be trusted because the votes cast early would be discarded.
By this point, there are already reports of voting machine problems and irregularities. Martina Stewart reported for CNN that in Jefferson County, Texas, the County Clerk admitted to receiving “about half a dozen calls” that touch-screen voting machines were recording votes inaccurately. Apparently, the candidates’ names are so close to each other on the screen that there is a possibility of pressing the wrong name when making the selection. The machines have a “summary screen” where the voter can verify that the correct candidates were selected before finally hitting the button to actually cast the votes. Similar problems were discussed by a reporter named Bill Murray at WSAZ in West Virginia. Murray’s report pointed out that long fingernails and contact with the screen by bracelets could result in erroneous votes.
On Monday October 27, The New Mexico Independent reported that in Albuquerque, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against a Republican state lawmaker, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act and disclosure of confidential information about voters, including Social Security numbers. The article discussed the efforts of a Republican State Representative, Justine Fox-Young (a defendant in the suit) to support claims of voter fraud in the state’s June election. The Independent had previously reported that Republican Party attorney Pat Rogers had hired a private investigator named Al Romero to make contact with voters whose registrations were under scrutiny by Republican activists. The article discussed allegations by two legally-registered Hispanic voters, that they had been intimidated by Romero. Pat Rogers had been cited in the U.S. Department of Justice report about the firing of U.S. attorneys and was described as one of the New Mexico GOP activists who complained to the Department of Justice about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Iglesias was one of the U.S. Attorneys fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for political reasons. The firing of Iglesias was a result of his failure to pursue a politically-motivated, bogus “voter fraud” investigation.
If Barack Obama defeats John McCain by a narrow margin, we can expect protracted recounts and microscopic inspections of voter registration documents. My concern about this was reinforced when I read a quote from McCain speechwriter, Mark Salter, in a Washington Post article by Michael Leahy, on Thursday. Speaking about John McCain, Salter said:
So, don’t expect McCain to be a “gracious loser”. Unless there is a landslide on Tuesday, there could be a long, ugly fight, reminiscent of the election fiasco of 2000.