Yesterday's FISA legislation passed the House without a majority of support from Democrats, who opposed the measure 105-128 in spite of the votes of Reps. Pelosi and Hoyer. A notable exception however were Democrats in competitive districts.
The Cook Political Report counts 31 incumbent Democrats as being in potentially competitive House districts, not including those who are retiring. Here is how that group of 31 voted on the legislation:
That is 23 Yeas against 8 Nays; included among the Yeas were all 6 incumbent Democrats in districts rated as "toss-up". By contrast, those Democrats in noncompetitive districts (or those who are retiring) voted against the measure 82-120. A special star of sorts should go to IN-9's Baron Hill, who was the only Democrat in a competitive Red State district to oppose the measure. Hill has run for the House five times, winning on four occasions, but never by more than 25,000 votes.
Now, one should be careful about conflating cause and effect. Did these Democrats vote for the FISA bill because they think it will help them to get re-elected? Or were they elected in 2006 because they were conservative enough Democrats to vote for this legislation in the first place?
Either way, this certainly helps to explain Nancy Pelosi's mindset.
As for Barack Obama, I'm not sure that he had much choice but to come out in support of the legislation. Was he really going to throw Nancy Pelosi under the bus and pick an intraparty fight when she was as instrumental as anybody else in Washington in getting him the nomination? Was he really going to run afoul of the Blue Dogs when they are probably his swing voters in passing some version of national health care legislation?
This was certainly a political decision on Obama's part -- but not necessarily one that had very much to do with his own electoral prospects. The FISA issue simply isn't high-profile enough to register at the national level. Instead, it was a decision made with the politics of governance in mind: not a 2008 decision, but one for 2009.
53 comments
It may have been politically necessary for Obama and Pelosi, but that doesn't mean I have to like or even condone it. It seriously is disappointing that our checks and balances in the three branches have become so politicized that it becomes necessary to not use them at all. First it was not impeaching any of the administration when what they've done is worse than anything any administration previously impeached or threatened with impeachment. Now it's passing a bill which will irreversibly cover asses that shouldn't need to be covered and in ways in which no ass should ever be covered (I'm speaking of the asses of telecoms, congressmen, and people in the administration).
Right when we got back one of the rights granted in the constitution (by only a 5-4 vote among people who aren't even supposed to be politicians!) it seems that another is going to get taken away.
It's not just disappointing what they did yesterday. It was a red letter day. We need to take names and when we have a way, we need to get each and every one of those bush enablers out of office.
Bye, 4th Amendment. We loved you.
Why wait, Fractal? Glenn Greenwald is coordinating an advertising effort to pick off some of those chiefly responsible for this travesty. I've already kicked in $40, and I'll likely donate more later when I've saved up some.
We need to make some examples so these.... people who are best not accurately described in polite company will learn to respect the will of the people.
I don't even know if I can support Obama anymore. A friend of mine has been saying that as soon as he gets into office he's going to pardon the entire Bush administration just like Nixon was pardonned. I didn't want to believe that before but now I don't even have faith in justice being served there.
@6:29. My friend told me that Obama's going to enslave all the white people as soon as he gets into office. I don't know if I can support him anymore.
there's a broken link in there
Hey, uh, Fractal?
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This:
red-letter day
a day which will always be remembered because of something especially good that happened on it
Yeah, maybe Red Alert or uh let's see Red Scare or maybe even Red Dawn is what you were thinking of. Just a guess. My money's on Red Dawn based on the quasi-hysterical tone.
Aside from the constitutional issue, I thought this to be a winner for the dems. Framed in the argument "bush/McCain" assault on your freedoms, dems stalwart defenders. There must be some significant exposure in congress if immunity is stripped.
Disappointed but not surprised by the party.
I agree with Nate. In electoral politics, this would have been a winning issue for Obama (and Pelosi, and the blue dogs, by the way) to pick a fight on. However, in order to convince them of that, Obama would have had to start much earlier and devote real, quiet time with them, time he does not have in a campaign. Cheaper for him to just play it politically - "I am for compromise even though some aspects of this one are not what I would have done."
Does not make it any less of a bitter pill. Especially because when we won last round I actually let my hopes get up.
I honestly think that Obama lost over a million dollars in donations, and comparable volunteer hours, with his move yesterday.
I think you are spot about Obama making a political decision based on governing in the future.
Legislative fights have a kind of inertia and too many people online think there are heroes who come in and save the day. This fight was lost A) when Harry Reid made the Senate Intelligence Committee bill the focus of the debate and not the Senate Judiciary Committee bill and B) when both the House and Senate named conferees who supported the Senate bill. I wish people like Dodd and Feingold and Obama had put a skin in the game earlier when it matters but they didn't.
OT: Your blog is amazing. Congrats on all your success.
I'd put Bill Foster in with Baron Hill. Exclude Cook County from Illinois, and what remains is nearly as red as Indiana.
Pardon the Bush administration? Some people have lost it. The only person convicted of anything is Scooter, and Obama won't be pardoning them.
But, thank goodness, he also won't be spending his first 100 days settling old scores with the Bush administration. I'm amazed that's what some people expect when we need Iraq over, health care passed, the environment dealt with in a real way, etc. Making sure Bush and Cheney and Rice go to jail is so far down the list of priorities, I don't even see them.
This country re-elected this corrupt administration in 2004. That's a fact we've all had to deal with. Obama can't make that right, nor is he responsible to. I just want these people in our rearview mirror.
Until George Bush stole the White House, "conservatives" used to stand for "freedom," the Constitution, smaller government and strict law enforcement.
By each of these standards, opposing warrantless wiretapping is a "conservative" issue.
Any Democrat running in a "conservative" district should oppose warrantlesss wiretapping, not support it.
The only possible arguments for for supporting it are (a) support for a dictatorial Presidency, (b) support for unaccountable corporations, or (c) willingness to give up all freedoms because there are terrorists who hate us. Has Bush really transformed "conservatism" to mean this?
Compromise happens. It's not that bad, in fact it is a sign of post-partisanship.
"Post-partisan" = Democrats are split, Republicans get what they want. Pragmatism may be a good short-term strategy, but it's a terrible long-term strategy. Look at the Republicans: they occasionally take a hit for whipping their centrists so hard, but boy does it pay off in the long term. Democratcs could learn a little about short-term pain / long-term payoffs.
On a more empirical note, given that Obama's position on FISA would probably not have impacted his national campaign, can we estimate how many seats in Congress his opposition to the "compromise" would have cost us? Between 0 and, say, 4? (Any way to be empirical about this?) Not enough to affect any conceivable future legislation, I'd imagine. So is it just saving face for 20% approval Pelosi's? For "Unity"?
The list of swing districts coincides almost precisely with the list of Democrats elected in November 2006 or later -- which is no surprise, since Members in their first term are statistically far more vulnerable.
But another interesting way of looking at the vote is that Democrats elected in the first class since the revelation of Bush's illegal spying program (or in special elections thereafter) actually voted mostly in favor of retroactive immunity.
That's rather amazing.
That's probably as much a factor of having recruited a class of conservative-leaning Democrats (and "Fighting Dems") in 2006, on the theory that people would elect Democrats who looked and acted more like Republicans. It "worked." And lo, they did act like Republicans.
I think Kagro just answered fertik's question.
Evie: Clinton let the Iran-Contra bad guys go and guess who wound up in Florida for the recount and then gave us an illegal war in Iraq? There must be payback. Not for revenge, although revenge will be sweet, but for justice, and to guarantee stolen elections and illegal wars and constitution busting never happens again or doesn't happen again until everyone living now is long dead. It's not a question of getting them in the rear