Daily Kos has a round-up of the Democrats who voted to drastically expand President Bush's surveillance powers, reportedly because they feared being tarred as "weak on security." With a President whose approvals are in the mid-20s, I'm not particularly sympathetic to "fearing" anything he might say. But nonetheless, there are some red-state Dems who do have to be wary about bills like these, and while I'm still disappointed in their votes, I can't say I'm too surprised.
That being said, there are some names here that scream out for explanation. Such as my home state Senator, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. Maryland, of course, is one of the bluest states in the country, and Mikulski is normally a consistent liberal vote. So what on earth made her flip here? I have no idea. It's appalling.
Other Democratic Senators and Representatives who don't have the "it was my state/district" excuse:
Sen. Tom Carper (DE)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (HI)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Rep. Jim Costa (20th California)
Rep. Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Rep. Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Maybe...just maybe, Congress recognized that this is not an unreasonable extension of federal power to deal with a serious threat. First, there were some serious loopholes closed by this bill (like the foreign calls routed through the US problem). Second, the warrantless aspect involving US citizens or residents is still quite limited, as it can only occur when the "target" of the surveillance is NOT in the US.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy the argument that terrorism is the existential #1 threat that the Bush Administration claims it is...but, it is still a threat. And we need to take reasonable steps to protect the country, because if there's another big attack, the reaction will even be worse.