tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8657344379515198783.post4328405912613748288..comments2023-11-05T02:19:13.411-05:00Comments on Airing of the Grievances: Fear the Telecoms, Hate the Red State Dems! (JM)Dennishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12649848515867751444noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8657344379515198783.post-84379832180545689122008-02-13T12:18:00.000-05:002008-02-13T12:18:00.000-05:00That doesn't even make sense. It's not like these...That doesn't even make sense. It's not like these people are voting against FISA legislation. It's that their not immunizing telecom companies. If these senators can't even muster an argument that says: "We are in favor of giving the government the tools it needs to protect America, but we won't protect companies that wantonly violated your rights. We are not even condemning these companies, we are just giving people a right to a day in court; a right everyone ought to have." If they can't make this argument then they don't deserve to be senators. Creating terrible policy because Republicans are really good at conflating any action with being soft on terrorism is completely unacceptable. I mean it strikes me in particular that most of these senators endorsed Obama, the very man who spends all of his time bashing Hillary for not taking a stand against war for political reasons...Dan Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01255192610898436474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8657344379515198783.post-15257525075631987362008-02-13T11:05:00.000-05:002008-02-13T11:05:00.000-05:00the fear is isn't being soft on telecoms, but bein...the fear is isn't being soft on telecoms, but being soft on terrorism. . . remember, the immunity protects telecoms for giving the government illegal wiretap data. The red-state dems are afraid of being painted as protecting terrorists over american companies. <BR/><BR/>Its an absurd allegation, but its the one that red-state dems would be hit over the head with.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13547157867576754937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8657344379515198783.post-2139910256596151722008-02-13T00:50:00.000-05:002008-02-13T00:50:00.000-05:001) Sigh, you know you show a little respect for th...1) Sigh, you know you show a little respect for the American populace and someone has to throw GWB back at you. Well, I see you GWB and raise you Zachary Taylor. Where would we be without ole' ZT, eh?<BR/><BR/>2) Vote trade... that sounds like a the lame defense a sitcom version of Claire McCaskill would say. She'd cook up some crazy story about a "vote trade" all the while telling everyone different stories and then when it all comes out disastrously, we all shake our heads and say, "Oh Claire...".Dan Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01255192610898436474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8657344379515198783.post-37315851707191205882008-02-12T15:44:00.000-05:002008-02-12T15:44:00.000-05:00Two Comments:1) I contest the notion that voters a...Two Comments:<BR/><BR/>1) I contest the notion that voters aren't dumb (see presidential elections, 2000, 2004)<BR/><BR/>2) It's true that McCaskill has not been great for the cause (D) but for the sake of devil's advocate, this could have been a vote-trade... for better or for worse.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03448801683784957610noreply@blogger.com