re: FISA...why did we even let it come up for a vote?

[dkf]

Aren't there ways to stop legislation when we are in charge of both the House and Senate?

I don't get it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Pelosi wanted it to pass, of course.

When the pubs were in charge, they only put up stuff they wanted to, when they wanted to, and because they wanted to. I can only figure it's the same now as it was then, the speaker gets to set the agenda.

[dkf]

2. So once it passes the House, the Senate has to vote something similar up or down?

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. I think so, and if they're different it goes to committee

Something like that

[dkf]

12. I'm just trying to figure out where we were supposed to stop this thing

if we had any chance at all.

Sounds like we left it too late. It seems to me we didn't get up in arms until after Pelosi had got it through the house.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. It didn't have to be brought to the floor or to a vote

The urgency of this bill is a complete fabrication.

[Youphemism]

14. We were supposed to stop it in the House, where we have a majority...

Instead, over 100 Democrats defected and voted to support it.

Once that many people jump ship, there is no hope that the Senate, which is pretty evenly divided, is going to stop it.

That's why all this hysteria over Obama's vote is overbaked. This bill should have been slapped down in the House, where there is some leverage. Instead, the Democrats overwhelmingly gave it so much momentum that there was no doubt it would sail through the Senate.

[Enrique]

3. for political benefit

or if you prefer, to prevent politcial harm.

[dkf]

5. I don't understand why Pelosi allowed telecom immunity.

We should have dared Bush to veto.

[Enrique]

7. she didn't like telecom immunity

she has resisted it for months. She changed her position because of politics.

[dkf]

8. The only thing i can figure is she's afraid we will get attacked.

Which makes me wonder what she knows that we don't.

[sandnsea]

4. Some districts support it

I guess they aren't supposed to represent their constituents.

[dkf]

6. I can't believe a majority of Americans in any district understands the FISA

law, much less is strongly for it.

[Enrique]

9. I don't believe most opponents of it understand it either

[dkf]

11. We do understand electronic surveillance with no probable cause.

Not Good.

[Enrique]

15. Pelosi claims it extends probable cause

[sandnsea]

19. So whose fault is that?

We can't just rant in generalities and expect people to magically jump on board.

[tkmorris]

18. Yeah? Prove it

I think you're just making shit up. SHOW me the districts that approve it, or retract your statement.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Because our congressional leadership sucks. nt.

[quaker bill]

17. Because

we did not want the election to be about this issue. We have not found victory down the path of "Who will be tough on the terrorists?"

The issue is now off the table. It is not like George W Bush was suddenly going to comply with Constitution anyway. He would have just vetoed any other bill and kept the ball in play.

Presidents have a great deal of power, things like possession of the keys to our nukes. We should try electing someone rational enough to possess these powers for a change. Having accomplished that, if we do, the FISA program will be relatively easy to fix.

[uponit7771]

21. Then Pelosi could've taken the heat and sheilded others from base being pissed off

[uponit7771]

20. RIGHT!! This was a net negative move for Obama!!! Pelosi is on my list for a second or two