Feingold stands up for the Constitution

I teased some of my colleagues and said we can celebrate the Constitution on July 4th and maybe when we come back you'll decide not to tear it up. -Russ Feingold on FISA

I didn't write when the House passed their unthinkable FISA capitulation to Bush and the telecoms - so unthinkable that even my own Blue Dog Congressman opposed it:

On June 20, 2008, the House voted on the FISA Amendments Act. This bill passed the House by a recorded vote of 293 - 129. I voted against this bill, as it contains provisions that would allow for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies and allow the President to declare what is lawful and what is not. I have strong reservations against removing the checks and balances currently in our government by effectively removing the judicial branch from the decision as to whether or not the warrantless surveillance program was lawful.

- Baron Hill, in a letter to concerned constituents

I didn't write about this Constitutional horror when it passed the Senate - even as Feingold and Chris Dodd tried to block it with a filibuster.

I have come to the conclusion now, that it is really useless to write. They own us, guys.

We are now owned - lock, stock and barrel - by corporate America. The Constitution, as King George himself was purported to have said, is "just a piece of paper."

While our troops are supposedly fighting for 'freedom' and 'democracy' overseas in Iraq - and Iraqis call it an occupation - no one is defending our own freedom and democracy here at home. From tyranny.

Well, no one save a few: Kucinich, Feingold and Dodd.

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have sold out. It appears a great majority of the Democrats in power have sold out.

They have sold out to the thousands of lobbyists now working right next to them in D.C., and with much more access and money than we will ever know. These days, representation costs money. We apparently don't have it, so we are of no consequence and the looting of our public coffers will continue - along with this war, the spying, and the corruption - unabated.

This administration's crimes are already much worse than Watergate - everybody knows it, and no one will touch it. The newspapers won't even write about it. Is that a democracy?

The Government of the People, by the People and for the People has perished from the Earth.

The only questions now before us are how the whole thing is going to cave in around us... and when?

Guantanamo lawyers challenge constitutionality of FISA bill

Because you see... the fourth amendment really is worth fighting for.

From Think Progress:

Yesterday, lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees asked a federal judge in San Francisco to invalidate the recently-passed FISA law that lets the Bush administration conduct warrantless surveillance on suspected terrorists without first getting court-approved warrants.

"We are asking your honor, as swiftly as possible, to declare this statute unconstitutional,” said Michael Avery, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights. … “Neither Congress nor the president has the power to repeal the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements,"Avery said.

In CCR v. Bush, the lawyers argue that the government’s surveillance program is jeopardizing their ability to represent their clients, all detainees at Guantanamo. The Center for Constitutional Rights reports that they have made thousands of telephone calls and sent many e-mails to people outside the United States in the course of their clients' representation - and that all are now subject to warrantless spying:

The Center writes, “Given that the government has accused many of CCR’s overseas clients of being associated with Al Qaeda or of being of interest to the 9/11 investigation, there is little question that these attorneys fall within the likely range of victims of the NSA Surveillance Program.” CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren said:

It is virtually certain that the NSA spied on our confidential communications with our clients as well as conversations with other American attorneys outside of the U.S. The president violated his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of this nation and instead secretly broke the law for years to spy on Americans. He has taken an axe to the Constitution.

Will the Constitution and the good lawyers win out against the awe-wielding president and his Congressional enablers? Is the presiding judge still a 'real judge,' or another RNC partisan operative? Film at 11! New information coming into the Situation Room all the time! (Well, I'm guessing this won't be one of the 'breaking items' they will be covering... it's too close to real news.)

Whither the rule of law in the good Ol' USA?

Figuring out my 'representation'

I just read my recent 'megavote' mailing, and I am... frankly mystified.

There are two bills specifically that I would have expected my representatives (in the Senate and the House) to vote exactly the opposite of the way they voted. It would appear now that my 'Blue Dog' Democrat is actually to the right of Senator Lugar (R-IN.)

First the Senate voted to pass the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act - the very bill Bush plans to veto (I guess he doesn't like children?)

Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (68-31, 1 Not Voting)

The Senate passed this bill that would add 3 million lower-income children to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Sen. Richard Lugar voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Evan Bayh voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Thankfully Evan Bayh voted with the Democrats, and I was pleased to see the Senator Lugar supported this as well.

Now to check the vote of my Congressman, Baron Hill, for the House version of this same bill:

Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (225-204, 4 Not Voting)

The House voted for this bill that would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding up to 5 million children to the program.

Rep. Baron Hill voted NO......send e-mail or see bio

Huh?

It passed and it appears the majority of Democrats voted for it... what gives?

Now on to the FISA bill that has so many of us, well, upset. Senator Lugar actually refrained from voting, and Senator Evan Bayh - Democrat - voted in favor of it:

Protect America Act - Vote Passed (60-28, 12 Not Voting)

The Senate passed this bill which would temporarily expand the executive branch’s authority to spy on suspected foreign terrorists without a court order, when communications are passing through the U.S.

Sen. Richard Lugar voted Not Voting......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Evan Bayh voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Meanwhile, I've already written about the epic 'Blue Dog betrayal' of the Democratic Party on this very vote when it went before the House:

Protect America Act - Vote Passed (227-182, 23 Not Voting)

The House passed this bill which would temporarily expand the executive branch’s authority to spy on suspected foreign terrorists without a court order, when communications are passing through the U.S.

Rep. Baron Hill voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

So what am I to make of this?

It appears... that Senator Lugar, my only REPUBLICAN representative is in favor of insuring children - even though the president is not - and my Blue Dog congressmen - DEMOCRAT - is somehow against this children's coverage, apparently siding with the president.

My Republican Senator Lugar also refrained from voting against the FISA bill - and no, I don't know why and probably should call and ask.

Both of my DEMOCRATIC representatives voted to give total and now LEGAL wiretapping authority to Alberto Gonzales (the very guy the Democrats are supposedly preparing to impeach - or so they say,) so that they could head off on vacation for the entire month of August.

If you were me -- wouldn't you be confused?

Animal House

Epic 'Blue Dog' betrayal of our Constitution

41 House Democrats voted today to roll over, pant, beg for a bone and pass Bush's eavesdropping amendment. 30 were Blue Dogs.

One of them was mine.

The bill, with a typical neocon opposite-of-the-truth name -- the 'Protect America Act' -- passed 227-183, with 181 true Democrats and two Republicans opposed.

My hat is off to the two Republicans. You proved yourselves more loyal to your nation than these simpering Blue Dogs.

Democratic traitors to our Constitution include:

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Don Edwards (16th California)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

Obviously Bush and Cheney have these 'representatives' on a short leash. Perhaps Bush threatened to withhold their Greenies. Maybe Cheney was threatening to keep them from their Kibbles n Bits. We'll never know. Maybe they were just... afraid.

And what exactly have we the people lost with this latest betrayal of our trust? What constitutional rights have been sold out from under us by these 'Democrats' we sent to represent us? Marty Lederman at Balkination:

The key provision of S.1927 is new section 105A of FISA (see page 2), which categorically excludes from FISA's requirements any and all "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons. Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at persons in the U.S.

The key term, obviously, is "directed at." The bill includes no definition of it.

So they can spy on any of us now. Anyone, with no cause. And as Robert Parry of Consortium news pointed out, it is we the citizens of the Unite States that our government is watching... not Al Qaeda:

But al-Qaeda terrorists always have assumed that their electronic communications were vulnerable to interception, which is why 9/11 attackers like Mohamed Atta traveled overseas for face-to-face meetings with their handlers. They limited their phone calls to mostly routine conversations.

The terrorists also had no reason to know or to care that the U.S. government was or wasn't getting wiretap approval from the secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They simply took for granted that their communications could be intercepted and acted accordingly.

It never made sense to think that al-Qaeda terrorists suddenly would get loose-lipped just because the FISA court was or wasn't in the mix. The FISA court rubber-stamps almost all wiretap requests from the Executive Branch for domestic spying, and overseas calls don't require a warrant.

Can anyone really imagine a conversation like "Gee, Osama, since Bush has to get FISA approval, we can now call our sleeper agents and plan the next attack."

Similarly, there's no reason to think terrorists would change their behavior significantly if they knew that the U.S. government was engaged in massive data-mining operations, poring through electronic records of citizens and non-citizens alike.

The article went on to state that the real reason for this bill was to cover up past wrongdoings in the domestic spying program that was already in place:

The chief reason, especially for the excessive secrecy around the data-mining operations, appears to be Bush's political need to prevent a full debate inside the United States about the security value of these Big Brother-type procedures when weighed against invasions of Americans' privacy.

Bush knows he could run into trouble if he doesn't keep the American people in the dark. In 2002, for instance, when the Bush administration launched a project seeking "total information awareness" on virtually everyone on earth involved in the modern economy, the disclosure was met with public alarm.

The administration cited the terrorist threat to justify the program which involved applying advanced computer technology to analyze trillions of bytes of data on electronic transactions and communications. The goal was to study the electronic footprints left by every person in the developed world during the course of their everyday lives -- from the innocuous to the embarrassing to the potentially significant.

The government could cross-check books borrowed from a library, fertilizer bought at a farm-supply outlet, X-rated movies rented at a video store, prescriptions filled at a pharmacy, sites visited on the Internet, tickets reserved for a plane, borders crossed while traveling, rooms rented at a motel, and countless other examples.

Another reason for the last minute desperate FISA bill, was apparently due to the fact that an anonymous judge (anonymous judge?) struck down a 'key element' of Bush's original wiretapping program, stating that the government had overstepped it's authority:

A U.S. intelligence court earlier this year secretly struck down a key element of President George W. Bush's warrantless spying program, The Washington Post reported in its Friday edition.

The decision is one reason Congress is trying to give legal authorization to the spying program in fevered negotiations with the Bush administration this week, the Post reported.

The intelligence-court judge, who remains anonymous, concluded that the government had overstepped its authority by monitoring overseas communications that pass through the United States, the Post said, citing anonymous government and congressional sources.

The Democrats have once again, caved.

Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick at the Washington Post reported:

The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded as weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to proceed with an August recess. ...

Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions to the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attack. ...

"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded." Cowards!! You are the MAJORITY!!

In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months. ...

Tonight, several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."

Carl Hulse and Edmund L. Andrews at The New York Times reported:

The House Democratic leadership had severe reservations about the proposal and an overwhelming majority of Democrats opposed it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."

But with the Senate already in recess, Democrats confronted the choice of allowing the administration’s bill to reach the floor and be approved mainly by Republicans or letting it die.

If it stalled, that would have left Democratic lawmakers, who have long been anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing an August spent fending off charges from Mr. Bush and Republicans that they left Americans exposed to terrorism threats. (So you SOLD US OUT. Better you had let Bush 'call you names.' This is unforgivable.)

Despite the political risks, many Democrats argued they should stand firm against the president’s initiative, saying it granted the administration far too much latitude to initiate surveillance without judicial review. They said the White House was using the specter of terrorism to weaken the privacy rights of Americans and empower Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, an official Democrats say has proved himself untrustworthy.

"Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering," said Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey.

Time to replace these Blue Dogs with real Democrats. Or Republicans that value the Constitution. Or everyday, patriotic Americans that have read the Constitution and are capable of standing up to fear-mongering bullies.

These people should never be elected to public office again. Never. Note the names. Remember these names.

Countdown: FISA and Fear Mongering

Bush axed Dem-DNI FISA deal while claiming none had been offered

From Muckraker:

Exclusive: Bush Nixed Dem-DNI FISA Deal

Today, while standing with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, President Bush lamented the inability of Congressional Democrats to give McConnell the tools he needed to capture the communications of terrorists:

When Congress sends me their version, when Congress listens to all the data and facts and they send me a version of how to close those gaps, I'll ask one question, and I'm going to ask the DNI: Does this legislation give you what you need to prevent an attack on the country? Is this what you need to do your job, Mr. DNI? That's the question I'm going to ask. And if the answer is yes, I'll sign the bill. And if the answer is no, I'm going to veto the bill.

And so far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign. We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk.

There's only one problem with Bush's statement: it isn't true. (Shocker!)

A key Democrat in the negotiations, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), says that a deal had in fact been reached with McConnell, who has been busy lobbying Congress on a FISA update all week. "We had an agreement with DNI McConnell," Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Bernards tells TPMmuckraker, "and then the White House quashed the agreement."

A bill that House Democrats put forward today does not require the National Security Agency to seek warrants for surveillance of persons inside the United States -- only that the Attorney General will issue "guidelines" as to how collecting the communications of U.S. persons should operate.

Suckers.

A sad day for the U.S. Senate

Put out the torch, Lady Liberty. It was nice while it lasted.

From the AP:

The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.

The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the bill.

Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation this weekend.

The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit.

The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible."

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.

I'm speechless. Democratic majority? My own Senator, Evan Bayh, has betrayed us. Democratic majority? Cowards. They caved to Bush AGAIN. They threw our constitutional rights under the bus, again, for a little 'temporary safety.'

Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave.

No Republicans voted against the bill. The following Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh (Indiana); Tom Carper (Delaware); Bob Casey (Pennsylvania); Kent Conrad (North Dakota); Dianne Feinstein (California); Daniel Inouye (Hawai‘i); Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota); Nancy Mary Landrieu (Louisiana); Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas); Claire McCaskill (Missouri); Barbara Mikulski (Maryland); Bill Nelson (Florida); Ben Nelson (Nebraska); Mark Pryor (Arkansas); Ken Salazar (Colorado); Jim Webb (Virginia).

Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama all opposed the bill, as did 23 other Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. Joe Lieberman voted... with the neocons, of course.

From the NY Times:

A furious push by the White House to broaden its wiretapping authority appeared on the verge of victory on Friday night after the Senate approved a measure that would temporarily give the administration more latitude to eavesdrop without court warrants on foreign communications that it suspects may be tied to terrorism.

The House is expected to take up the White House-backed measure on Saturday morning before going into its summer recess.

Democratic leaders acknowledged that the bill would probably pass.

Democrats in both the House and the Senate failed to pass competing measures on Friday that would have included tougher judicial checks and oversight on the eavesdropping powers.

The White House and Congressional Republicans hailed the Senate vote as critical to plugging what they saw as dangerous gaps in the intelligence agencies’ ability to detect terrorist threats.

“I can sleep a little safer tonight,” Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who co-sponsored the measure, declared after the Senate vote.

Rock-a-bye baby Bond... you were more likely to be injured by a car accident than a terrorist, you coward.

What ever happened to 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?' I guess they're damned good swimmers. Or maybe the real problem is that Bush hasn't been looking for 'them' at all, but simply bullying Iraq into signing his oil bill, while 'they' continued to get stronger and stronger in Pakistan.

Only days before recess, the White House started screaming that a desperately needed FISA upgrade was required to give Bush broader spying capabilities. Here is why they got their panties in a bunch, from Newsweek:

Aug. 1, 2007 - A secret ruling by a federal judge has restricted the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas and prompted the Bush administration's current push for "emergency" legislation to expand its wiretapping powers, according to a leading congressman and a legal source who has been briefed on the matter.

And what did this judge know that we apparently do not? We'll never know! I'm guessing that the Senate will never know either. This will of course be 'privileged information,' and we the people... we will never be so privileged. We are just the great unwashed, kicked out of our own democracy -- and by our representatives no less.

The measure “goes far, far beyond” the National Security Agency program that the president secretly approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

Caroline Frederickson, head of the American Civil Liberties Union office here, said: “The Democrats caved in to the politics of fear we’re seeing from this administration. They didn’t want to be depicted as soft on terrorism. But this measure removes any court oversight from surveillance on Americans in a large number of cases.”

Nice try Russ, but they aren't listening to you. It's a bitch caring about democracy these days. It's a real bummer to have a grasp of history and the Constitution. Lonely, frightening and beyond depressing.

We are losing everything: the very soul of this once proud country. Stolen from us because we are... in fact, no longer 'the home of the brave' at all; or even the descendants of the greatest generation that liberated Europe from fascism.

Apparently we are now merely the home of the quivering, fearful and the gullible.

But I'll be mailing a pair of kneepads to Senator Bayh, to take some pressure off his poor kneecaps for his return to the Senate next month. Poor Bayh: cowering before the supreme executive must be humiliating work. I can think of better ways to make a living. Like cleaning toilets.

I hope he gets a nice tan while he is off on 'recess.' I hope he sleeps a lot better than I do.

Bush and Cheney are much more interested in partisan and corporate interests than terrorists (we were never attacked before he took office, did you notice?)

Corporate Bush buddies can now use 'Homeland Security' to attack people who blow the whistle on law-breaking, corporate polluters; so you can just imagine how Bush will use these broader powers he so desperately wanted, while the Senate is home facing our wrath.

And they will face our wrath:

Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S. spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However, they initially demanded the FISA court to review the eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure that Americans aren't targeted.

By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted.

Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.

"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy -- not the executive branch."

Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.

"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control -- it's mind-boggling."

I will never vote for any Senator who voted for this bill. Ever. And I will never forget this betrayal.

Songs of terror in the White House

Bush: Congress must stay put, pass new terror surveillance law
Associated Press
Aug. 3, 2007 09:30 AM
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Friday that Congress must stay in session until it approves legislation modernizing a U.S. law governing eavesdropping on foreigners.

"So far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign," Bush said at FBI headquarters, where he was meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials. "We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short."

The president, who has the power under the Constitution to keep Congress in session, said lawmakers cannot leave for their August recess this weekend as planned unless they "pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."

Congress to Bush: You must stop obstructing justice, withholding testimony and flaunting subpoenas. You must also stop breaking the fourth amendment of the Constitution by spying on American citizens without a warrant. Congress has the power under the Constitution to impeach you for obstruction of justice, along with an entire laundry list of other offenses. Don't push your luck.

Another thing. You must also stop telling us what we 'must' do. You are not a king.

Feingold willing to stay; protect civil liberties

This is why I revere the man. This is why I wish, desperately at times, that he was my Senator. Senator Feingold is a man of true ethics, and he's representing us... at a time when so many others are either looting, spinning or caving.

While congressional Democrats are caving to the White House right before the break, so as to appear 'tough on terrorism' (and weak on defending the rights of American citizens,) Russ is standing tall. Again. Probably also alone. Again.

Commenting that congressional Democrats and Republicans are moving “awfully quickly” on a White House proposal that will make it easier for (whoever is doing it these days, no doubt outsourced to a corporation) to eavesdrop on, well everyone, Feingold said he is in “no hurry” to leave town for the August recess:

“I don’t feel the need to get out of here. I would much rather stay here than have us make a terrible mistake,” said Feingold, who has made a name for himself as a champion on civil liberties in the Senate. “This is not the kind of thing that should be done on the fly, and I am prepared to stay here as long as it takes to fix it. Or, if they need force this through, I’m not going to make it easy, if they don’t make it better.”

Thank you Russ! I don't use the word often... but you're one of my few heroes in Washington. Somewhere out there, Lincoln is smiling. Somewhere out there, our nation's founders are cheering.

(And someday when you no longer need worry about 'accepting' anything from anyone -- I'm betting Benjamin Franklin is holding a pint of beer for you!)