“Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering.”

That’s what Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey said about the new revision of FISA law which would give the Attorney General the power to issue warrant less wiretaps without any real overview of the FISA court. Yet in the end that’s exactly what many Democrats did:

There was no indication that lawmakers were responding to new intelligence warnings. Rather, Democrats were responding to administration pleas that a recent secret court ruling had created a legal obstacle in monitoring foreign communications relayed over the Internet.

They also appeared worried about the political repercussions of being perceived as interfering with intelligence gathering. But the disputes were significant enough that they are likely to resurface before the end of the year.

There’s a number of reasons I’m an Independent instead of a Democrat (there’s little hope of my ever being a Republican) and this is one more reason to tack onto that list. Too often the Democrats are more worried about doing what they think is beneficial to their careers over what is right and usually they’re wrong about how much it’ll help their careers to boot. It boggles the mind to think that Democrats prior to winning both houses in 2006 managed to keep similar legislation from ever seeing the light of day only to turn around once they have the majority and hand the Bush administration exactly what it wants and has been trying to pass for so long.

Good job, dumb asses. Looks like our hopes of Bush no longer having a rubber stamp Congress were just wishful thinking after all.

By the by, I need to track down a list of the Democrats that voted for this stupid bill so I can see if any of my representatives were idiotic enough to go along with it.

12 thoughts on ““Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering.”

  1. There’s a number of reasons I’m an Independent instead of a Democrat (there’s little hope of my ever being a Republican) and this is one more reason to tack onto that list.

    Even so, the lesser of evils? Democrats might not be ideal, but if they have a reasonable chance of standing against the republican aproach…
    (it’s a compromise between what you want and the likelihood of success/election)

    Change has to be fed in slowly if it is to be accepted, one stratergy is to mix it in with stuff you don’t really agree with just to get your foot in the door, and gradually change the mix in the direction you want to go.

  2. It’s a politician thing to do something in favor of career over what is intelligent or just the right thing to do.  Democrats are just too big of pussies to stand up for what they truly believe with Obama being the exception.

  3. Democrats are just too big of pussies to stand up for what they truly believe

    It is risky to promote what you believe in, and they do aim to be elected, so have to take on a few wrong ideas just to win over the stupid, because they need that vote too. You just need to look like you’re being honest about what you stand for (which some democrats seem to not)

    It’s a politician thing to do something in favor of career over what is intelligent or just the right thing to do

    Such character might have been what got them into the position they are in (and worked lower down), hence they continue to try to use it. I think things change a little past a certain point and we see them crash+burn using old techniques in a new situation, they don’t always see the point to change coming

  4. Disappointed? Yes. Angry? Yes. Surprised? No. After all, why do the right thing when it’s politically inexpedient or unpopular?

  5. Hell’s bells—if they can’t even stand up to our own president, how do they claim they can stand up to terrorists?

    Wait … they’re one and the same.  Never mind.

  6. Where did the phrase “hell’s bells” come from? Are there bells of some sort in hell mythology?

  7. The unauthoritative sources I was able to quickly Google indicates that “Hell’s Bells” refers church bells tolling during the Black Plague.  (Or perhaps on the “Bring Out Your Dead!” cart.)  Or perhaps bells rung by Turks after successful battles during the Crusades.

    Do not ask for whom the bell tolls …

  8. I’m sorely disappointed by their rolling over like this—though minor kudos for putting in a 6 month renewal.

    As always, better check the fine print.  As I understand it, Dubya and Gonzo can get a 12-month extension if the loophole is right.  This regime doesn’t concern itself with actual laws, why it’s even bothering with the pretense of legality anymore is beyond me.

  9. though minor kudos for putting in a 6 month renewal.

    The Patriot Act had a sunset clause in it as well and we all know how well that worked out. In 6 months he’ll just clamor to have it made permanent just like he did with the Patriot Act. For that matter he may demand it be made even worse at the time.

  10. The Patriot Act had a sunset clause in it as well and we all know how well that worked out.

    Exactly. I think there’s a statement made by one of the founding fathers (or some other dead-dude) that power, once given, is the hardest to wrest away.

    It also baffles me that the Republicans aren’t fighting harder themselves to limit the power of the executive, simply for the fact that the next occupant (and it will be a Dem, writing’s on the wall) will have all of this handed to them simply by precedent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.