At today’s vote on FISA revisions, Claire McCaskill voted for telecom immunity by joining those who voted against the Feinstein/Dodd amendment that stripped it from the Intelligence Committee Bill.
According to a McCaskill staff person to whom I spoke, she also joined Republicans and a few other Democrats-in-Name-Only to strip Feinstein’s exclusivity amendment from the legislation. As Kargo X noted on DailyKos:
Exclusivity — the purpose of the amendment that “failed” — meant simply this: that the law they were passing was the law, and it was the governing authority for how surveillance could be conducted in America.
The Senate just rejected it, so that means that they’re passing a law, but if a president decides later on that he thinks there’s really some other controlling authority besides the law, that’s OK.
By capitulating so flagrantly to rule by executive decree instead of rule by the Constitution, McCaskill has crossed the line. I accept that Missouri has a strong conservative, rural component that McCaskill must also represent, and that she walks a fine line. However, some principles are more important than the fine art of politics–and diluting the Constitution ranks high among them.
My question is, then, is there any real possibility of opposition to McCaskill and how does one (or many) go about identifying and encouraging such opposition? Is McCaskill going to get off scott-free after (metaphorically) slapping progressives in the face?
Update: In the wake of the disastrous Senate Fisa votes, Firedog lake has a petition to the House to stand form against the Senate FISA legislation and insist on their superior Restore act. Sign here
Glenn Greenwald, as usual, offers the most comprehensive analysis of the vote
She can not be reelected. We have to start organizing now. Can someone do a spreadsheet with her numbers? How loyal a Bushie is she, anyway?
Not one dime, not one minute of my time. I will, however raise thousands of dollars and walk hundreds of miles for Satan himself if he will just get her unworthy ass out of the Senate. She is a disgrace. Harry Truman has to be rolling over in his grave.
Which constituency does McCaskill voting for telecom companies to get away scotfree with illegal wiretapping? I don’t know a lot of rural conservatives who are just clamoring for wiretapping. And even if she were facing pressure because of Bush’s bully pulpit, he’s at 30% in the polls and he’ll be gone in a year! She doesn’t face reelection for another four years.
McCaskill is either stupid, or she’s a coward, or she’s greedy for telecom contributions. I don’t which one is worse. She’s got no excuses at all for her ridiculous behavior as our senator.
…at her DC 0ffice.
I left a stern message.
They know without reservation that I wash my hands of her, and want a primary challenger.
but this was one was laid out. It was a no brainer and she blew it.
…about McCaskill’s voting today: she voted FOR many of the amendments to the bill and when they failed to pass, she still voted for the base bill.
I would think that most people, when confronted with a flawed bill that contains few or none of the amendments that you thought would make it better, would vote AGAINST cloture and would vote AGAINST the bill. But not Claire – she still voted FOR cloture and FOR S. 2248. WTF?
She really disappointed me today. After all of the talk during her campaign about bringing accountability to Washington, she voted to let the telecoms and the Administration AVOID accountability for their illegal warrantless wiretapping. In doing so, she rejected the civil liberties of Missouri citizens and embraced corporate wrongdoing.
I would hope that all of the Democratic organizations in the ShowMeProgress community will voice their displeasure with her BushDog status. We should all ring her phones off the hook and run the fax machines out of paper tomorrow.
If McCaskill continues on this path towards Bond-ification, I think we should seriously consider recalling her after the 2008 Presidential elections.
Admittedly, I don’t know the first thing about whether that is even a legal possibility, but it may be an option. It sure as hell would beat having to endure five more years of this betrayal of the trust we placed in her.