The Old Eighteen

Noriega speaks out against telecom immunity

Here's a new video from Rick Noriega's campaign, in which the candidate speaks out against telecom immunity and calls for Senator Box Turtle to stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law:

I'm glad to hear Rick speaking out against amnesty for the telecoms.  Too bad our presidential candidate isn't doing the same thing.

Obama, don't drop the ball on FISA bill

I haven't taken the opportunity yet to talk about the FISA bill that passed in the House Friday, so let me just say first of all that Steny Hoyer is an idiot if he thinks that this bill represents some sort of compromise, or anything other than the complete capitulation that Russ Feingold characterized it as.  Democrats have no political need whatsoever to cave in on telecom immunity to the most unpopular president in American history and his equally unpopular fellow Republicans.  By doing so, Hoyer and the rest of the pisspants caucus have gained nothing for themselves or the party this fall, and have in fact lost standing with the Democratic base.  There's a reason why, as unpopular as Bush is right now, Congress has an even lower approval rating, and that's because while Bush is corrupt and incompetent, he at least stands for something.  The only thing Steny Hoyer stands for is to pull his urine-soaked trousers off at the end of every day.

The fight against telecom immunity has now moved to the Senate, where our presidential candidate has an opportunity to make sure that the FISA bill gets filibustered to death if retroactive immunity isn't removed from the bill.  Thus far, Barack Obama has expressed partial support for the bill but has also said that he will work to get telecom immunity removed before it comes to a vote.  MoveOn.org, which played a crucial role in helping Obama secure the Democratic nomination, is holding his feet to the fire, calling on him to honor his pledge last year to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.  I think they're right to do so - this is an opportunity for Obama to show that he is in charge of the Democratic party, and to provide some much-needed leadership in an area where Democratic leadership has been sorely lacking to date.  This is a big test for him, and if he drops the ball here, it's going to sap some of the enthusiasm for his presidential campaign from many of his strongest supporters.

Yet another reason to hate AT&T

Besides the fact that their customer service is crappy and their rates are way too high, they also play kissy-face with John McCain:

On the national level, the company is not only a major player in Congress, but it is well-represented in the campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

According to USA Today, current and former AT&T lobbyists serve as McCain's campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, Senate chief of staff, campaign co-chairman, finance director and national finance co-chairman, as well as some of the campaign's leading fundraisers.

Wow.  Is there anyone in the McCain campaign who doesn't have ties to AT&T?  They've also spent a lot of money polluting the political process here in Texas:

Several years ago, the company, then called SBC Communications, paid more than $3.5 million to hire 112 lobbyists to persuade the Texas Legislature to pass legislation it wanted.

Faced with opposition from, among others, the major cities of Texas, it lost in the regular session but won after the governor authorized a special session to take up the issue.

I wouldn't mind switching service providers (I get my phone and internet from the bastards), but I doubt there's anyone else out there who is really any more ethical than they are.  Sigh...

::

(via Tom Blackwell at Burnt Orange Report)

House Dems pass FISA Bill without telecom immunity

Cue petulant snit from President Bush:

"Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:

“First, the President knows that it was the Administration’s incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed – that’s one possibility. They simply didn’t do it right. Second, the Administration’s legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.

“None of these alternatives is attractive but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration’s insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.”

(via Atrios)