Thankfully for some, distressingly for others (like me), I've been able to follow along today on the FISA votes and, rather lacking a climax, nothing managed to achieve cloture. McConnell's version went down pretty badly, and Reid's extension failed 48-45. Senators Boxer and Feinstein voted no on the McConnell amendment (good vote) and yes on the Reid extension (also good vote).

So now we're back to where we were last week with nothing having been decided. It will be interesting to see what the President has to say about this in the State of the Union, since presumably it will set the tone for the next several days and any potential filibuster led by Senator Dodd.

And if anyone's curious, Sens. Clinton and Obama each voted the right way on both as well.

All sorts of interesting developments on the FISA debate over the weekend as we swing into the next phase of the showdown. First, the New York Times blasted leading Senate Democrats in an editorial for even considering an extension of Bush's protections. It also went ahead to say what so many of us know already: the notion that amnesty for telecom companies is anything but an attempt to cover up what this administration has been up to is...well...crazy. The President contends that amnesty is necessary to get cooperation in the future, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. If the law is followed, it's not a problem. And if there's any question about legality, the time to sort it all out isn't well after the fact. That's the whole point of having a FISA court in the first place.

Call Senator Feinstein and ask her to stand with Senator Dodd against immunity   Read More »

Yesterday was a big day on the FISA debate, but only the beginning. We got Senator Feinstein's attention, both jamming all of her voicemail boxes and getting a comprehensive response from her Communications Director. Most encouraging has been the cooperation throughout the netroots and grassroots organizations that want to protect our 4th amendment rights. Courage Campaign was joined by CREDO, DailyKos, Glenn Greenwald, FireDogLake, D-Day at Digby, and countless others to push back on unnecessarily bad legislation. We even got a big boost from John Edwards. But while we've clearly gained momentum, the issue will extend into next week.

Tim Tagaris has a great rundown of what's likely to be coming down next week. A number of votes are likely on Monday, which also happens to be the day of the State of the Union. That means that EVERYbody is gonna be in town and we could really see some fireworks as presidential contenders like Clinton, Obama, and McCain come home and either conspicuously mix it up or conspicuously don't. As one commenter at OpenLeft noted yesterday, most people on the street have no idea what FISA is. Well, with all the attention on the big presidential candidates, that could change.

There are indications that we may ultimately not get either the Judicial or Intelligence versions of the bill through, in which case we're likely to see a 30 day extension courtesy of Harry Reid on Monday. Regardless, we're going to be seeing cloture votes and battles over 50 and 60 vote thresholds all day Monday leading up to Bush almost certainly bringing it up during the State of the Union.

Senator Feinstein will remain a key vote on any FISA legislation. I encourage everyone to read Robert's excellent analysis of everything that's wrong with her particular amendments and keep up the heat and act now to tell Senator Feinstein tto support the Dodd filibuster and protect tha Constitution.

FISA is grabbing national attention today as the debate rages on the floor of the Senate, and on the heels of Senator Feinstein's response to Robert's post, Senator John Edwards is calling for citizen pressure on Senators Boxer and Feinstein. The heat is on and Edwards isn't mincing words on this one- "It's wrong for your government to spy on you." No kidding.

Senator Feinstein's parsing position that would give away the keys to the store and validate immunity for Bush on this issue is a classic example of Democrats conceding the issue without a fight. When Bismarck declared politics to be the art of the possible, it's hard to imagine he meant the art of what is immediately possible. Time and again, this administration has demonstrated that it is not only foolish but reckless to operate in "good faith" when the Constitution is involved, and moving constitutional judicial proceedings behind closed doors doesn't inspire much good faith in me.

Anyways, the leadership from John Edwards on this issue is much appreciated and a big boost to proponents of basic freedom. It appears that Senator Clinton will not support the Dodd filibuster by returning to Washington and Obama has, so far as I know, not moved to add support either. That's disappointing but not entirely unexpected as the battle continues over every single Senator.

Keep up the pressuring phone calls to make sure that Senator Feinstein knows we're serious about this one.

Check out the Edwards email on the flip.   Read More »

Senator Feinstein's office has responded to our criticisms:

 

"Today's post on Senator Feinstein's amendment to the FISA bill contains a number of serious and misleading factual errors.  I write to correct the record, and I hope that you will update your post with this information.
 
1. You write the ACLU has been "vocal in their opposition" to the Feinstein amendment.  Not true.  They have not taken a position on the Feinstein amendment."

We are currently waiting on the ACLU's response on the Feinstein amendment, though it is correct they have not been "vocal" in opposition to it to this point.

 
2. Additionally, you quote Tim Sparapani, ACLU senior legislative counsel, as evidence of the ACLU's opposition.  This quote – which appeared in The Hill, not Roll Call – is not in reference to the Feinstein amendment, but to the Specter amendment.
 
              "The ACLU, meanwhile, has condemned the Specter amendment because it believes the measure leaves some loopholes open to the government."  (The Hill, DoJ, ACLU cool to Specter's FISA deal, 01/17/08) http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/doj-aclu-cool-tospecters-fisadeal-2008-01-17.html

 
We did not claim this quote applied to Feinstein's amendment directly. Instead we used it to illustrate the reasoning behind our own opposition to Feinstein's amendment. More on this below. They are correct that the email sent out to Courage Campaign members said the quote was from Roll Call not The Hill. It is our mistake.

3. As for the content of the Sparapani quote, it does not apply to the Feinstein amendment providing independent judicial review of immunity claims.
 
                   He said:  "Unless Congress wholly rejects [the] executive privilege or state secrets claims, there are legal hurdles that could prevent the full hearing of the matter in federal court," said Tim Sparapani, ACLU senior legislative counsel.  "We also oppose having the FISA court making the good faith determination unless outside parties are allowed to argue in front of the secret court, which has never happened before.  Otherwise, only one side is represented."
 
Let me explain how it doesn't apply:
· First, the Feinstein amendment specifically rejects the state secrets claim.
 
· Second, the Feinstein amendment specifically allows outside parties to argue their case in front of the FISA Court.  The court's ruling can also be appealed to a higher court.

But even if it allows outside parties (and even then only those who have already filed lawsuits, disempowering other Americans who have not yet filed), and even if their ruling can be appealed, that is still not the same as public, open courts handling this issue. And further, it would still potentially allow immunity - which we still flatly oppose - and would still use the discredited "good faith" determination to grant such immunity. The deck would remain stacked against plaintiffs and against the rule of law.

Bottom line:  This amendment preserves independent judicial review of the telecom company's immunity claims.  If it can be shown that the companies were not acting based on legal government certification and not in good faith, then their claims of immunity can be denied by the Court.

In yesterday's press release they said "OR" in good faith. Which is it - "and good faith" or "or good faith"?
 

This is a reasonable alternative.  It adds court review of any immunity.  It allows the companies and the plaintiffs to make their case before this federal court skilled in intelligence.

We strongly disagree that this is a reasonable alternative. It is wrong for the FISA court or the US Senate, directly or indirectly, to grant or make possible immunity for illegal activity. No matter how Feinstein dresses this up, this is fundamentally designed to give the appearance of protecting legal rights while setting up a process that is virtually certain to provide immunity anyway. 

Now that the Senate has settled in after its winter vacation, the rubber is hitting the road. Floor hearings begin TONIGHT on the FISA extension and with it, telecom immunity. Senators Dodd and Feingold have pledged to filibuster any immunity for telecom companies who may have violated our Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has declared in no uncertain terms that he'll force a true filibuster in order to stop yet another Bush victory.

He's picked an odd time to take such a stand, since he's never actually forced a Republican filibuster, but make no mistake about the stakes here. Granting telecom immunity would establish the legal precedent which would give President Bush the same immunity. What's at stake is no less than whether Bush can or will be held accountable for his actions.

That's why it's so vital to contact Senator Feinstein and insist that she oppose retroactive immunity.

If we don't take a stand now on accountability and the basic rule of law, there's no telling when we'll get another chance. And I'm not much interested in cutting Bush any more slack. Senator Feinstein's vote is going to be key in the fight to protect our privacy and our Constitution. She has a bunch of phone numbers. Keep calling till one of them lets you through:

202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)
310-914-7300 (Los Angeles)
415-393-0707 (San Francisco)
619-231-9712 (San Diego)
559-485-7430 (Fresno)

On the flip, check Eden's call to action.   Read More »

As Super Tuesday fast approaches, California is seeing an unprecedented level of organizing from leading presidential candidates. In fact, Clinton, Edwards and Obama will all be in California today despite the Nevada caucus being just two days away. Regardless of candidate, it provides an exciting springboard for activists throughout the state to gain the tools for turning politics to the progressive for elections to come.

But to capitalize on all of that, progressives need to make their voices heard. The new nomination schedule has changed the game in ways we don't yet fully know, but Rick Jacobs dives into it pretty well at Huffington Post.

What it all boils down to is that Californians are in an unprecedented position to leverage investment of time, attention and infrastructure into lasting gains at all levels of politics. This is but a small corner of that broader effort, but a corner that can help progressives find their collective voice- or at least learn how to play nicely with each other.

Rick Jacobs' wiser words on the flip.   Read More »

We've got ourselves a heck of a horserace shaping up as the PickYourPresident poll continues. In just 24 hours we've seen a lot of movement in the standings, with John Edwards cutting Obama's California lead in half. Elsewhere, Clinton bumped Edwards for 2nd in Ohio and the two are separated by a whisker in Michigan- further evidence of a Clinton surge over the weekend.

I've got big plans to head for Reno at the end of the week (Friday, also when the poll ends), and I've got no idea what to expect from the Nevada caucus. Given that Nevada has never seen a caucus like this, it's impossible to predict with certainty what will happen there. But given how unpredictable the nomination process has already been on both sides, I can't imagine it'll be definitive. I'm waiting right now for Michigan results to be finalized, but that won't matter much on the Democratic side. Momentum is a fickle beast, but Super Tuesday is the one time it could actually matter. Polling throughout Feb 5 states have shown that races are tightening all over. Who knows what could happen at this point, but if you have a candidate that you support, the more public your support, the better.   Read More »

California's presidential primary is just three weeks from tomorrow, and California progressives are battling in the Courage Campaign's presidential poll over Obama and Edwards. They've been battling for the top spot for almost a week as we enter the final stretch.

Thousands upon thousands of votes have been cast and the top spot has changed hands several times already. Though Clinton and Kucinich are currently slugging it out for third, anyone could still make a strong move for the top spot. The margins are that close throughout the top four.

Voting runs through the end of the week, and I know that I, for one, will be watching this vote carefully heading into the Nevada caucus on Saturday. That race has barely been polled because it's nearly impossible to guess what will happen in a caucus that's never been early or important before. Which means that absolutely anything could happen- there's no model for this. We've been surprised in Iowa and surprised in New Hampshire, and I sure have no idea what to expect in Nevada.

I'll be heading to Reno on Friday for the caucus and I'll be keeping an eye out for signs of progressive people-power along the way. California gets to flex its ballot-box muscle on February 5th, but in the meantime, when absolutely anything could happen in Nevada (especially with me going there, the state will be lucky to survive), this is a chance to drop a subtle whisper of suggestion to our Sierra Nevada neighbors and help set the table for whatever candidate you support in California.

Rick Jacobs waxes wise on the flip.   Read More »

Pick your President Now

Since the blogged update last night, there's been plenty of back-and-forth between candidates. And both the California and National order are looking more and more like other polling as Rep. Kucinich has fallen to fourth and Sen. Clinton has surged into the top three.

But since at this point other polls don't seem to be especially stable or accurate, these results can be as compelling as any other as this race goes down to the wire. And the way things have been going, this race is almost certain to go down to the wire. With the hundreds of thousands of progressives that will see the results of this poll, it sure would be a nice boost in the trenches for the eventual winner.

Check out the current standings on the flip, and remember that every time you steer another person to the poll, it's another opportunity to recruit support for your candidate.

And make sure you vote.   Read More »

Last night I watched New Hampshire results come in from a party in Encinitas to officially launch the congressional campaign for Nick Leibham in the 50th district. And when he wasn't busy whipping the crowd of several hundred into an anti-Bush frenzy, I have to admit I was glued to the tvs throughout the room. And almost as exciting as the spilling-out-the-door turnout at the party was the spilling-out-the-polling-place turnout for the second straight major election.

Most of all I'm excited to discover that, contrary to the "momentum-is-all" punditry, we've got ourselves not one but two full-on races for the presidency.

Five times so far Americans have cast their votes for President. And five times someone different has won. Obama and Huckabee in Iowa. Romney in Wyoming. Clinton and McCain in New Hampshire. What's next?

That, not surprisingly, is where you come in. Pollsters took a beating in New Hampshire, which means that, quite frankly, nobody knows what's going to happen now. Which makes this an opportune time to make your voice heard. So before you hop to the flip and have Rick Jacobs give you the full rundown, I'll ask:

Who will you vote for?   Read More »

On Thursday night I left work early, stopped off for popcorn, and spent all night watching the results from the Iowa caucus come in. New Hampshire's primary is tomorrow and I'm set for another great night of election watching. But in the meantime, millions of California primary ballots went into the mail ahead of our February 5th primary that's now less than a month away.

I'm following these primaries and caucuses so closely because I know what's at stake: The party and the country are choosing a direction for the post-Bush years. It's vital for us to find our strongest progressive voice as we start figuring out how to recover from eight years of Bush on Iraq, Bush on health care, Bush on global warming and energy, Bush on civil liberties, Bush on the Constitution.

Courage Campaign is seizing on California's opportunity to be a major decision maker in this process by surveying progressives to find our strongest voice. But in order to get the best results, we need the best possible progressive turnout.

So spread the word to the progressive voters you know.

Rick Jacobs says it better on the flip-   Read More »