Why The Dems Should Grow A Pair On FISA

A lonely group of 15 Democrats are the only senators set to put forth any serious opposition the FISA Bill set to pass the Senate by the end of the week. This bill will give immunity to all telecommunications companies which illegally allowed wiretaps on a number of (number and people, specifics generally, unknown) American citizens at the behest of the White House. It also legalizes sweeping powers in the monitoring of American telecommunications; all calls, e-mails, text messages, you name it, made to locations outside of the country, will be recorded.

Not just where the call or e-mail is made will be recorded either – the entire content of the transaction.

The compromise the Democrats are receiving in return for supporting the bill is increased oversight of the wiretapping, as a secret court will be approving individual wiretaps. Wiretaps are just the jingoistic Cold War-era word for listening on people’s conversations. The reality is that all communications sent abroad will be recorded and stored; a wiretap just gives permission to access those files. All in all, this may make some Democrats feel better, though for civil libertarians everywhere it means putting more than a little faith in government.

Immunity for the telecom companies also means that we will have no way to compel them to release the records on who has been wiretapped. Therefore, future enlightenment as to the actions of the administration or the telecommunications industry will probably be buried with this bill. Immunity for the telecoms will mean not just freedom for the companies but likely a “get out of jail free card” for Bush, Cheney & Co.

Russ Feingold is one of the few senators leading the charge against the bill and has more than a little resentment for Senate Democrats who have largely caved on FISA:

“It’s the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It’s the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I’ve seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It’s letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they’re that unpopular and on their way out. It’s really incredible.”

Feingold really couldn’t be more spot on with his assessment. The senators standing up to the bill are a list of Senate superstars whose seats aren’t really up for grabs, and are unlikely to be so in the future. Huffington Post provides us with the list.

Joseph Biden, DE
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Chris Dodd, CT
Dick Durbin, IL
Russ Feingold, WI
Tom Harkin, IA
John Kerry, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Patrick Leahy, VT
Robert Menendez, NJ
Bernie Sanders, VT
Chuck Schumer, NY
Ron Wyden, OR

(For his part Reid has promised to vote against it, but will not debate against the bill)

For the most part all Democrats in some fairly blue areas (minus Sanders) or with enough of a reputation to feel safe despite their swim against the stream. Feingold’s mention of this being one of the biggests “failures… other than the vote to end the Iraq War…” is highly appropriate, because it brings a memory that reminds me of another Democratic disgrace; the vote to authorize war in Iraq.

It was a different time then, Democrats were in the minority then and Tom Daschle was minority leader, and while at the helm, he piloted the Democrats into one of the worst pragmatic collapses of principle in the party’s history. Why did he do it? While trying to defend a minority in the Senate, he mistakenly thought that an appearance of Democratic Party weakness on security would mean the collapse of the party. It was a very safe move at the time, judging by Bush’s approval ratings and the overall approval of the war on terror. However, some opposition could have meant strength in the future and much, much bigger leads in Congress and possibly a Kerry win in 2004.

Could you have imagined a 2004 election when Kerry didn’t need to justify a war vote? Instead he and most of the Senate Democrats toed the party line and voted to approve the war.

The problem with the old school Democrats is that they obsess over polls and image and don’t take proper care of their brand. When it comes to party identification, and therefore electoral support, brand is the most important factor in choosing a party. The Republicans never used to have a problem with this, which is why they were so successful in the beginning of this decade, as they took care and fought for the Republican planks of social issues and security. This strong brand identification allowed them to trounce and bully the Democrats in the initial post-9/11 landscape. A few years down the road, the Republicans are in trouble for mishandling their brand with poor showings in matters of security, relatively few social victories and rampant spending, to name a few of their issues. Had the Democrats stood strong in 2003, things would be much brighter for them now. Daschle may even be Senate Majority leader right now. It ended up, however, that the architect of the failed Democratic Congressional strategy took the biggest hit. Good riddance.

Yet some Democrats seem unable to learn from their opposition and many of them are running and ducking for cover as the 2008 election approaches. It reeks of the Daschle strategy and will only set the Democrats up for another perceived weakness when/if a scandal breaks out over wiretapping. When you take things to the bottom line, it really boils down to this: who wants to vote for a person who can’t stand for what they believe in?

Daschle’s ghost still remains, and in the Obama campaign, it walks around whole-bodied.

Those of you watching the campaign closely have maybe noticed Daschle’s influence on the Obama camp. He’s been talked about as an outside VP choice. He’s been talked about, in a very real way, as a possibility for White House Chief of Staff. Obama’s recent decision to not filibuster FISA has the smell of Daschle all over it. About FISA Obama has said:

“It is a close call for me, but I think that the current legislation with the exclusivity provision that says that a president, whether it’s George Bush or myself or John McCain, can’t make up rationales for getting around the FISA court, can’t suggest that somehow there’s some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps. The fact that that provision is in there I think is very important and provides us protection going forward. The fact that that provision is in there I think is very important and provides us protection going forward.”

He has promised to try to remove any language involving immunity for the telecoms. This is a classic Daschle strategy; toe the party line and line up an excuse for why you have or have not done what you should. It is also poor politics because when this thing passes all that will matter to the people (which is closer to the truth than the neat excuses politicians try to give) is that Obama voted for FISA. If or when this bill becomes a scandal, the blame is going to partially fall on Barack’s head, President or not.

He should have tried to filibuster the bill because, after all, it would have still been 17 votes to 83, and the bill would have passed. A loss for democracy generally but a moral victory for the Obama campaign.

Meanwhile, whispers will go out about how it can be ‘hope’ or ‘change’ to vote for a shadowy secret court wiretapping American citizens.

The McCain campaign will blast his brand – how is it ‘change’ to vote against your conscious and for the politically expedient?

Here’s hoping for an end to the Daschle Days.

-Marc-