Nancy Pelosi And FISA

With high-profile defections in the Senate (Sen. Reid and Sen. Dodd), the FISA compromise looks like less of a sure thing than it did when it comfortably passed the House last week. There's still (probably) enough votes for cloture.

The Democratic Netroots have been furiously pressuring members of the Senate and have been critical of Barack Obama for reluctantly support it. Which leads me back to a question, really, about Nancy Pelosi. Did she support the FISA bill in part because she wanted to provide cover for Sen. Obama with the left flank of the party? As a former ranking member of the intelligence committee, she knows more about the subject than most of her colleagues, and her every public utterance has tended toward a very different view than the expressed intent of the compromise bill. What do you think?

Comments

Fuck you.

We're not commenting solely on your push poll issues.

All comments or none.

Posted by James | June 25, 2008 11:50 AM

Agree with James. Consistency should be your goal here, Marc. Allowing comments only when the mood strikes you makes you come off as arrogant...

Also, I wish the press and prominent bloggers would stop referring to it as a "compromise". There's a world of difference between a compromise and an outright concession.

Obama needs to show he has a pair and fight the FISA concession or he risks seeming like yet another milquetoast democratic candidate.

Posted by Logan | June 25, 2008 11:56 AM

Agree with James. Consistency should be your goal here, Marc. Allowing comments only when the mood strikes you makes you come off as arrogant...

Also, I wish the press and prominent bloggers would stop referring to it as a "compromise". There's a world of difference between a compromise and an outright concession.

Obama needs to show he has a pair and fight the FISA concession or he risks seeming like yet another milquetoast democratic candidate.

Posted by Logan | June 25, 2008 11:57 AM

Marc Ambinder has the strangest commenters in the world. To get to the level of "fuck you" because he exercises some control over the comments is just insane. You really need to re-evaluate your life if you think that's appropriate.

Anyway...back to the matter at hand...Personally I think whatever Pelosi's political motivations, the behavior shows how truly craven and out of touch she is. Her party is in the majority and it will have a bigger majority by 2009 and a Democratic president. Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain. We're talking a reverse Regan/Dukakis if not even worse. She doesn't need to play footsie with Republicans at all. She can actually legislate with her conscience, yet she does not. She legislates, at best, from the position of playing defense against the evil, unstoppable Republican attack machine. At worst she's just showing her true colors. Either way it's pathetic.

Posted by bakum | June 25, 2008 12:11 PM

bakum,

It's entirely appropriate.

If you can't see the contempt Marc has for the people who comment on his blog, you should look closer.

Posted by James | June 25, 2008 12:20 PM

He's a fat cunt.

McCain said it, so Marc will be ok with it. Didn't do a single post on Cindy getting called that by John, despite Marc being confident all the women offended by HRC getting called 'witch' will be charmed by that, or by him laughing when a supporter calls HRC a 'bitch' (on Youtube btw). Don't think he posted that either.

big fat cuntwitchbitch.

Posted by McNutty | June 25, 2008 12:31 PM

If she was providing cover why is she making such stupid statements in support of it? And why did she vote for it(when Speakers rarely vote on bills to begin with)? Why not just let Hoyer take the blame? And why bring it to the floor to begin with?

P.S. I am not resorting to expletives, but I think opening comments permanently is a good thing.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 25, 2008 1:09 PM

I won't resort to snide remarks about your morbid obesity, Ambinder, but you really are a sad piece of shit. You should close your comments again.

Posted by xx | June 25, 2008 1:19 PM

Whatever conditions Marc is using seem appropriate given the lack of common courtesy I'm seeing here. James, if you don't like the way he runs his blog, just leave! No sense in running your own blood pressure up and annoying the rest of us with your gutter language.

Marc, getting back to your question, I don't have a clue what Pelosi and Hoyer thought they were doing. Maybe the idea was to not allow the GOP to accuse Obama of being soft on terror (we all know how much they'd love to wield that one again). I just don't get it, to be honest. It's a deeply flawed piece of legislation any way you look at it.

Posted by purplehawk | June 25, 2008 1:31 PM

Seriously, Ambinder, I swear to God. Close your comments permanently or I (for one) will troll each and every thread with running commentary on your incompetence and hypocrisy, and don't think I won't follow through.

Posted by xx | June 25, 2008 1:31 PM

Seriously, Ambinder, I swear to God. Close your fucking comments permanently or I (for one) will troll each and every thread with running commentary on your incompetence and hypocrisy, and don't think I'll be the only one.

Posted by xx | June 25, 2008 1:34 PM

I've got my issues with Marc, too, but it would be nice to be able to comment. Given that when he does open comments the first or second one invariably includes "Fuck you" or some variation, it gives him an excuse to turn them off.

Still, the Swamplanders put up with worse, Marc.

Posted by lowellfield | June 25, 2008 1:45 PM

When a hypothesis conforms to all known facts, it may be right. So Ambinder's framing may make sense. It is hard to understand the motives of House Democrats on FISA. Retroactive immunity for telecoms serves no constituency and challenges, to say the least, basic constitutional assumptions. The blogosphere has suggested two other motives: 1) Telecom financial contributions to Democrats, and 2) a desire to cover up any complicity among Democrats in warrantless wiretapping. Ambinder's suggestion makes sense. Almost none of the civil libertarians among Democrats will vote for McCain. The political tradeoff is that these civil libertarians, myself included, have provided enthusiasm, funding, and advocacy for Obama at the grassroots level. I think Pelosi would be better served by espousing and adhering to priniciples. Disregarding the party's most enthusiastic members will jeopardize Democrats' objectives before and after November.

Posted by JSW | June 25, 2008 1:58 PM

When a hypothesis conforms to all known facts, it may be right. So Ambinder's framing may make sense. It is hard to understand the motives of House Democrats on FISA. Retroactive immunity for telecoms serves no constituency and challenges, to say the least, basic constitutional assumptions. The blogosphere has suggested two other motives: 1) Telecom financial contributions to Democrats, and 2) a desire to cover up any complicity among Democrats in warrantless wiretapping. Ambinder's suggestion makes sense. Almost none of the civil libertarians among Democrats will vote for McCain. The political tradeoff is that these civil libertarians, myself included, have provided enthusiasm, funding, and advocacy for Obama at the grassroots level. I think Pelosi would be better served by espousing and adhering to priniciples. Disregarding the party's most enthusiastic members will jeopardize Democrats' objectives before and after November.

Posted by JSW | June 25, 2008 1:59 PM

James,

Contempt for the people who comment on his blog? I read the blog regularly and I have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe he has a different idea than you do of what's appropriate in a comments section which is why he shut down comments? Obviously he has a different sense of propriety than you do, but so what? You're not the final arbiter of all decorum. It's Ambinder's blog, if he wants to turn off comments that's his business. You don't like it you are free to go anywhere else your little clicking finger can take you.

More to the point, as a consumer you need to take the whole thing with a grain of salt anyway. This is a blog, it's got his name on it. THe subtitle is "a reported blog on politics." This is not a wire service or a newspaper. In other words you're going to get some of Marc Ambinder in everything you read here. I have never heard him claim otherwise. If you don't like that don't read it. To whine and moan and complain and call names and make comments about his weight is just childish.

-bakum

Posted by bakum | June 25, 2008 2:22 PM

I agree with bakum. Please disable comments, Ambinder.

Posted by xx | June 25, 2008 3:20 PM

If you think he is genuinely objective and isn't showing readers contempt by disabling comments without notice, then bringing them back, then stopping them without notice, and then bringing them back to comment on various non-issue when did Obama stop beating his wife polls and asking what we think about non-issues which are always anti-Obama.

I don't think Marc has ever acknowledged a correction a comment has pointed out, or even quoted one.

I didnt comment about his weight - though someone so sensitive about it shouldnt be so eager to appear on camera perhaps - I think that's not why the comments are stopped.

It's rather that he is being consistently and specifically called out on so many points, that frankly it's embarassing.

I was showing Marc the same courtesy he shows us - you disagree, that's fine. That's what comments are for, and I'm free to say what I want.

But only on issues that dont really count.

I'm not irate or high blood pressure. I just think he's a disgrace as a journalist and will point it out on the comments which are left open.

Posted by James | June 25, 2008 4:26 PM

Plouffe On McCain's Squandared Opportunity

Can't even spell check his own headings now.

Posted by James | June 25, 2008 5:10 PM

Why all the antipathy about comments? Sheesh!

As for Pelosi, I've been trying to figure out her capitulation for quite some time, now. The only thing I can figure is that she was scared the GOP would bash Dems with it in November.

But that's a pretty weak reason, as the GOP has been unable to bash the Dems over the past few months with it. Unless (sigh) she feared that if there were a terrorist incident, Dems would be blamed for not passing the new FISA.

I can't think of anything else plausible . . .

Posted by A DC Wonk | June 25, 2008 7:50 PM

One interesting thing is that the net effect of the way things played out is that a chunk of Democratic incumbents were shielded from challenges from the left on this issue during the primary season. The success of the netroots' fundraising shows how strong the feelings on this are; would it have been enough to tip a few races?

Could the Democratic party leadership have been pursuing a strategy of protecting incumbents on the way to getting to the "safe" result of not giving the GOP something to bash them with in November (and giving the heavy telco contributors what they want)?

"Selling indulgences", indeed.

Posted by jon | June 25, 2008 8:05 PM

I can haz comment?

Posted by greatful dork | June 26, 2008 4:36 AM

ambinder is just like pelosi. They are both either ignorant clowns, or selfish cowards, who have participated in the erosion of America's greatness. This country would be far better off had they gone into a profession more suitable to their talents, such as fertilizer sales.

Posted by Carl | August 12, 2008 5:02 AM