It is time to remind our ‘Democratic’ Senator just who, exactly, she works for.
Telecoms may be able to contribute more than we can – but they can’t vote. That is the exclusive province of us lowly rabble, the American citizenry, and with the blogosphere gaining prominence in the political arena every single day, it is a stupid politician indeed who sells out his or her constituency for thirty pieces of silver – and so far, that is precisely what Claire McCaskill has done.
She has drained my well of good will, and if she doesn’t get her act together and start acting like a true-blue Democrat who deserves to occupy Harry Truman’s seat – right freakin’ now – she will face the wrath of angry bloggers who will have spent five years calling for her political head when she runs again, and I promise her this: I will be leading the charge. She needs to do a gut-check right now – the FISA issue and telecom immunity alone will destroy her chances for reelection – and she can take that to the bank.
The name of this blog is Show Me Progress, not Show Me Perfidy, after all.
Here is her contact information – ring her phones off the hook. Make her fax machines squeal non-stop and flood her inboxes. Let her know just how pissed-off you are.
Click the link below to send her an email:
http://mccaskill.senate.gov/contact.cfm
And here are her phone and fax numbers:
Washington, DC
Phone: (202) 224-6154
Fax: (202) 228-6326
Cape Girardeau
Phone 573-651-0964
Fax 573-334-4278
Columbia
Phone:573-442-7130
Fax:573-442-7140
Kansas City
Phone: 816-421-1639
Fax: 816-421-2562
Springfield
Phone: 417-868-8745
Fax: 417-831-1349
St. Louis
Phone: 314-367-1364
Fax: 314-361-8649
Now get busy, Missouri, and get her damned attention. Our Constitution is in jeopardy and our Senator is doing absolutely nothing to save it. Let her know you are watching, documenting and pissed off!
I can’t say that she’s surprised me, but I’m still incredibly disappointed in her.
and the aide who spoke to me told me that I should not get so bent out of shape (my words) about this first vote, but should watch what happens next week as the Intelligence Committee bill is potentially amended. I did tell him that I was really disturbed that he thought that it would ally my concerns after McCaskill had already voted against a bill that met most serious objections and by so doing lessened the chances that good legislation could ultimately be passed. She better have one hell of a Hail Mary pass in mind. However, for what it is worth, which is maybe nothing, I was somewhat impressed that the aide seemed to want to imply that all was not lost.
And I second Clark’s thanks for your forceful posting. I meant to phone today, but you jolted into action right away.
I was pretty testy.
I stated that if I had wanted a U.S. Senator who didn’t believe in the 4th Amendment I would have voted for Jim Talent. I also asked the aide to write my name down (I spelled it), but this individual didn’t appear to be making an serious attempt to write it down. The individual did ask for my zip code. I added that Claire McCaskill needed to make this right – if she didn’t, I continued, I’ll be sitting on my hands come her next election. I asked if others were calling. Yep, they were. The background noise appeared to indicate such. After all that I then politely ended the call.
As for a “compromise” in letting the taxpayers foot the bill for any liability – think of it as another way for the people in dubya’s administration to escape responsibility.
I am more and more dissappointed with Claire… I worked my ass for and donated to her campaign. I told her office that right now, if Claire does not start voting like a Democrat, I will be directing my efforts and resources toward ensuring that there will be a primary in 2012.
The staffer I talked to was responsive and actually knew quite a bit about FISA. He basically confirmed that McCaskill supports the Specter amendment, which substitutes the federal gov’t as the defendant in the civil lawsuits.
I explained to the staffer why this is not a good amendment (taxpayers foot the bill, telcos have no disincentive not to perform warrantless wiretapping again, Administration invokes “state secrets”). I think there was actually some understanding there.
The comment was made that Claire was between a rock and a hard place. I believe the “rock” is Sprint HQ in KC (and other Missouri telcos/ISPs) and the “hard place” is her vocal anti-immunity constituency.
Personally, the only compromise I could accept would be one that does not grant immunity, but sets a cap or ceiling on the damages that could be awarded in these lawsuits. The ceiling would have to be high enough that it punishes the telcos and makes them very reluctant to ever engage in this illegal behavior again, but not so high that it would cause severe financial damage.
This would pull the rug out from under the Administration’s argument that not granting immunity could bankrupt the telcos. More importantly, it would allow the lawsuits to continue, which is most important because it provides that which the Admin fears the most – the discovery process and exposure of their wrongdoings.
I think she is going to try for a compromise position – allow wronged parties to sue the government while still letting the telecoms off the hook. Too clever by half, and will only serve to make us even angrier. Do you want to foot the bill for damages inflicted by AT&T with your tax dollars? I sure as hell don’t.