What's behind the FISA compromise?

Behind the scenes at CSCC we've had a running conversation about whether to make a big push to engage our members and our representatives in the debate about FISA--the Foreign Intelligence Suveillance Act. On one hand, it's not one of those priority issues (3 national, 3 state/local) that we identified for this year. On the other hand, it goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy: if the president can ignore the law, get the cooperation of the telephone companies (or at least some of the biggest ones) for unfettered access to all international communications, and then get the companies that knowingly broke the law retroactive immunity from any punishment, how can we believe in the protections stated in the Constitution?

Congressman Chris Carney, whom CSCC endorsed in 2006, voted to support the so-called compromise legislation that, in effect, grants retroactive immunity but restores court protections of various kinds. Many groups on the left, particularly MoveOn.org, have been fighting against retroactive immunity.

Now that Barack Obama, Jim Webb and many other Democrats have voted for the compromise, this issue seems resolved at least until next year. Here's a link to an article making the case that the compromise is better than no bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08halperin.html?ex=1373256000&en=d4807dea94410bce&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

(Morton Halperin, "Listing to Compromise," NYTimes, July 8, 2008)

From the reading I've done, all I can say is that we don't know whether this compromise is going to be a good thing or a bad thing. We may come to regret the message that has been sent here.

Was this issue worth taking on for CSCC, when we have our big three national issues of Iraq, Health Care, and Energy/Environment/Global Warming hanging out there? Perhaps our reps were counting on our limited attention span. For our elected officials, the danger of being blamed for a terrorist attack is probably a greater political danger than being blamed for an erosion in constitutional protections. Still, we should appreciate the efforts that Sens. Dodd and Feingold make to stop the retroactive immunity provision.

One hopeful sign: MoveOn.org encouraged its members to contact Barack Obama to let him know that there are steps he can take if he becomes president that could help to limit the damage. I contacted him through his website and got an automated response almost immediately (which was expected). TEN MINUTES LATER, I got an email specfically about FISA laying out his position and stating what he would do as president. Compared to other operations, which take days to respond or never respond (that's you, Sen. Specter) to electronic communications, the Obama team seems to be in the 21st century. Perhaps they also understand why electronic freedom and privacy matter.

Congrats to CNL on the Peacemakers Picnic

Yesterday I made it to the annual Peacemakers Picnic for the first time. I do wish I'd made it to the one (I believe it was the first one) that honored Rev. Alton Motter, a friend of mine who was killed a short time later in a car accident at the age of 95.

This year's event was particularly appealing both because Joe Manzi is a leader for CSCC and for CNL and because the honorees were two leading members of other progressive organizations in town: Lois Passi of CARE and Sam Pearson of the Local Action Network LAN (and a number of other initiatives), both of whom have done much to promote peace and justice. I was predicting (on the way there, as rain clouds seemed to be moving in) that the turnout would be small. The actual count was over 40, which is a good turnout on a Sunday in July. The food was great, too.

An added treat was to hear from the Milton teacher (Mike H?) who started the ball rolling on the Cambodia Project. Milton students and the community have raised nearly $40,000 to help build a school in Cambodia. I remember raising $1,000 for class trip way back when, and that was hard enough. That kind of money is truly inspirational--an example to all the students at Milton that ordinary people can make a difference in this world. That's something for us all to remember.

A Very Good Idea

Here is anew attempt to wrest control of Iraq policy from the bozos in the white house.

On first glance, looks very good.

http://www.responsibleplan.com/

An analysis of Chris Carney's voting record

John Peeler has just put together an analysis of Chris Carney's voting record that finds that Carney is a centrist and (surprise) neither as conservative as Don Sherwood nor as liberal as Nancy Pelosi (or even Bob Casey Jr.).



CHRIS CARNEY: Right Down the Middle

John Peeler

Representative Chris Carney (D-10), a year into his first terms and running for reelection, is portrayed by his Republican opponents as a "Nancy Pelosi liberal," even as many liberal Democrats express disappointment–and even anger–at how conservative he is. The respected, nonpartisan National Journal (March 8, 2008) has just come out with its annual ideological ratings of members of Congress, based on hundreds of votes during 2007. Now we can say with some assurance that Carney is neither a Pelosi clone nor a copy of his conservative Republican predecessor, Don Sherwood.

Overall, Carney was more liberal than 49.7 percent of House members (mostly Republicans). This centrist record held across all issue areas: he was more liberal than 52 percent of members on economic issue, 47 percent on social issues, and 49 percent on foreign policy issues.

By comparison, neighboring Democratic representatives were also moderate (Holden, 53.2 percent; Kanjorski, 57.3; Murtha, 61.2) while neighboring Republicans were notably more conservative (Peterson, 21.2; Shuster, 17.0). Carney's predecessor, Don Sherwood, scored 25.5 in 2006. Among House freshmen, Carney had the fourth lowest liberalism score among Democrats, but he was still 24 points more liberal than Sherwood. Carney's record is very close to the moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter (45.5) and more conservative than Senator Bob Casey (71.2). Carney is much more conservative than Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD, 79.2).

Carney's centrism is not unique: the magazine's cover features him with eight other congressional freshmen. A feature article argues that the freshmen elected in 2006, particularly those in predominantly Republican districts, are, like Carney, distinctly moderate in their voting records. Carney and the other centrists have frequently had to buck the party line: Carney said, "I have no hesitation when I vote against the party view if it conflicts with the values of my district."

In his first year, Carney has systematically worked to establish a voting record consistent with the relatively conservative district he represents. In doing so, he has displeased many of his more liberal supporters, while he is certainly not conservative enough for his Republican opponents (who think they still own the district). It remains to be seen whether he is conservative enough for the majority of voters in the 10th District, but it is hard to imagine how he could be much more liberal and still win reelection.

If true, the only reason you need to NOT vote for HRC

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/131156/5021/187/469677

Clinton's people play the race card and the running-scared-of-muslims card.

See for yourself:

Hilarious satire- Election results leaked.

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Budget and Military

Interesting graph here about the amount of budget going to military.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm