Bill Nelson's office confused me totally today. I think my leg was pulled.

[madfloridian]

I called about his vote on the FISA bill...you know...the one that killed the bill that did NOT grant retroactive immunity to telecoms?

They said he was supportive of what Chris Dodd was doing. He supported his amendment.

Yet when I told them that did not make sense in the light of his vote today to table the bill put forth by the Judiciary committee...you know..the one that does NOT grant immunity...they kept insisting he supported what Chris Dodd was doing. I could see at another forum on this topic that others were equally confused.

Here was the vote to "squelch" the bill of the Senate Judiciary Committee which recommended NO retroactive immunity.

From TPM:

Well, one down. The Senate just voted to kill (table) the Senate Judiciary Committee's surveillance bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity for the telecoms. The vote was 60-36 to table, with a number of Dems crossing over. As we said earlier, a number of other amendments will also go up for votes this afternoon.

..."Update: The final tally was actually 60-36, not 60-34, and the full list of Dems voting to kill were: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).

TPM Muckraker

Dear Bill Nelson, why did you help kill one bill with no immunity yet your office insists you will vote for one with no immunity.



Today, Sen. Nelson was among 12 Democratic senators who voted to table the Senate Judiciary Committee's electronic surveillance bill, which would have withheld retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies. In other words, Sen. Nelson voted to give aid and comfort to massive multinational corporations that may have assisted -- in fact, likely did assist -- the federal government in conducting covert electronic surveillance on American citizens, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution..

Picture and quote courtesy of Ybor City Stogie

I have been very disappointed in how our congressional leaders give up on battles too easily.

Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) himself opposes retroactive immunity, he struck a deal with the two committee chairmen to hold a vote first on the intelligence committee's version, and then have a vote on Leahy's version as an amendment. Civil liberty advocates say that move slants the debate in favor of a bill with immunity.

Why would he do that? He has control over what comes to the floor. Why not just bring the Senate Judiciary Bill to the floor. That would have been his choice. Why did he allow that bill to be killed?

[ChiciB1]

1. Didja HAVE To Show His Face To Me?? I Live Down Here & I'm

so sick of him and Mel Martinez... one would think they are "bunking" together in D.C.!!

And no, I didn't mean anything weird! There are times I think Bill Nelson is nothing more than a robot! He just makes living here that much WORSE!!!

[madfloridian]

2. I keep a record of the votes of Martinez and Nelson.

Way too similar.

[ChiciB1]

4. There Is One Comment That Has Stuck With Me Since Martinez Won

(or not) his Senate seat. I don't trust voting here much after all that has gone down. However, Bill Nelson couldn't wait to say... "Mel is a good friend and I can't wait to work together with him!"

This after being at every single Democratic event that showcased "big names" when they came to Florida. Up on stage with Betty Castor, and loving up John Kerry! I just can't stand him, and I'm sorry I HAVE to say it.

[tkmorris]

3. Come on Mad, you know our Bill

The man talks out of both sides of his face, always has. I rarely bother contacting him anymore; everything I say just falls on deaf ears. He is entrenched in his seat, he'll never lose another election for Senate, and he doesn't care what ANY of us think.

[ChiciB1]

5. Contacting Him Is A VERY Difficult Thing To Do!! He Seems To Ignore

all of us!

[kelligesq]

6. Harry's wife is a lobbiest. Who does she lobby for?

that might be helpful to know.

[madfloridian]

7. DAMN....I think they lied to me today.

I think both aides I talked to today actually lied to me. What the heck is going on here?

Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, agrees with the White House position.

Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who recently ended a bid for his party's presidential nomination, is vowing to block any bill that includes immunity for telephone companies. "I am vehemently opposed to that. I would utilize whatever vehicles are available to a senator here to stop that from becoming law with retroactive immunity in it," he said.

But Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, agrees with the White House position. "At the end of the day we have to have the cooperation of the telecommunications companies, and they should not have the threat of a spurious lawsuits hanging over their heads," he said.

I am goihg to call again tomorrow for some real answers!!

You do not mislead your constituents, Bill Nelson. How very very sneaky.

[tsuki]

8. I held my nose and voted for him last election. Never again. nt

[madfloridian]

9. More about this situation. Power plays?

It sounds like Nelson went along with voting down and squelching the Judiciary bill without immunity...so he can co-sponsor a bill with Diane Feinstein about immunity that would be decided by the FISA court apparently.

I do not understand why they had to bring up the Judiciary bill, vote it down and get rid of it....then bring up another?

Something does not smell right in this whole situation.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005139.php

"The major papers took a look at what happened on the floor yesterday -- particularly the defeat of the SJC bill -- and declare that it was a great day for the telecoms.

Yes, the SJC bill, which contained no retroactive immunity, did get voted down 60-36 with the help of twelve Dems. But it's far from clear that those same twelve Dems would vote to invoke cloture and prevent votes on the various other amendments. One of those Dems, for instance, is Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) who is co-sponsoring an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would throw the immunity question to the secret FISA court. Will he vote to prevent a vote on his own amendment? That seems unlikely. The Republicans need all twelve of those votes in order to invoke cloture.

So it will become a question of who's getting squeezed. Monday's vote is sure to be in the spotlight. It will be right before the President's State of the Union speech, making it likely the presidential candidates will show. And if that vote for cloture fails (my timid prediction), Sen. Reid has signaled that he'll try to shift the emphasis to the Republicans' obstructionism. Yesterday on the floor he declared: "It appears that the minority, the President, and the Republicans want failure. They don't want a bill. So that's why they're jamming this forward." (You can read a longer transcript of his remarks here.) Whether a media narrative of Republican obstructionism can take hold -- something that certainly hasn't happened so far -- is another question."

Sounds like power plays to me.

And the question remains....why would Bill Nelson pretend to support an amendment he obviously does not support?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-01-25-voa2.cfm

"Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who recently ended a bid for his party's presidential nomination, is vowing to block any bill that includes immunity for telephone companies. "I am vehemently opposed to that. I would utilize whatever vehicles are available to a senator here to stop that from becoming law with retroactive immunity in it," he said.

But Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, agrees with the White House position. "At the end of the day we have to have the cooperation of the telecommunications companies, and they should not have the threat of a spurious lawsuits hanging over their heads," he said."

[VP505]

10. Complete bullshit from Nelson,

fact is under the FISA law when telecoms follow the law (i.e. have a warrant) they are automatically immunized.

"But Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, agrees with the White House position. "At the end of the day we have to have the cooperation of the telecommunications companies, and they should not have the threat of a spurious lawsuits hanging over their heads," he said."

[NoFederales]

11. It's difficult to get through to McCaskill in Missouri as well. She voted against

the bill. She touts Obama solidly and disallows the Clinton camp any measure of wiggle room, but I don't get this FISA position.
I have a horrible feeling that these pols want us to believe they are "gaming" difficult and subtle power strategies, when all that is going on is same-same mumbo jumbo to protect and serve......themselves.

I truly am about to throw in the towell.

NoFederales

[MiniMe]

12. It could have been worse

It could have been Tom Feeney or Larry Craig's office. Might not have been your leg that was pulled
:hide:

[mmonk]

13. You have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of triangulation?

Answer. To confuse in order to placate.

[madfloridian]

14. Greenwald has more quotes from Bill Nelson.

"Bill Nelson, who is co-sponsoring Feinstein's amendment, said he expects all amendments to fail because they won't get the 60 votes required (i.e., the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip immunity and the Nelson/Feinstein amendment), but he also expects that the House will refuse to pass a bill containing telecom immunity. Thus, he argued that the compromise between the House and Senate to get a reconciled bill should be the Feinstein/Nelson amendment -- i.e., to tranfser the cases to the FISA court, which would then rule on whether telecoms deserve immunity.
*
The Motion to Table (i.e, kill) the Senate Judiciary Committee's bill -- which does not contain immunity and which does contain important safeguards on eavesdropping powers -- just passed 60-36. That means that the pro-immunity, pro-warrantless-eavesdropping Senate Intelligence Committee serves as the base bill. As usual, just enough Democrats -- roughly 12 -- voted in favor in order to ensure that the Motion passed while enabling Democrats generally to pretend that they opposed it. All GOP Senators voted in favor.

The pro-immunity, pro-warrantless eavesdropping Democrats: Rockefeller, Pryor, Inouye, McCaskill, Landrieu, Salazar, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Mikulski, Carper, Bayh, and Johnson. Neither Clinton nor Obama bothered to show up for any of this."

http://reclaimthemedia.org/broadband_cable/telecom_immunity_jay_rockefell%3D5756
*