Results of RK Poll on Sen. Webb's FISA Vote

By: Lowell
Published On: 2/19/2008 11:42:46 AM

With 100 votes cast (a nice round number), our unscientific RK poll on Sen. Webb's FISA vote indicates that only 10% of the RK community completely agrees with him on this issue.  Another 25% have mixed feelings or aren't sure what to think.  The remaining 65% -- a clear majority, obviously -- says that Webb's FISA vote was "wrong & goes against everything he stands for."

Again, this is completely unscientific, just a snapshot of what the RK community appears to be thinking right now.  It also appears to be what the Daily Kos community is thinking as well, except there it's probably 95% instead of 65% who believe the vote was wrong.  Thoughts?


Comments



I missed the poll, but support Senator Webb (humanfont - 2/19/2008 11:54:51 AM)
I missed the poll, but I trust senator Webb's judgement on these matters.  


Trust his judgement on these matters? So you don't trust your own (hcc in va - 3/4/2008 2:36:36 PM)
or other constituents judgment?  Sounds very self deprecating.  Our Senators work for US.  I worked as hard as anyone to elect Webb, including House Party fundraisers, etc., but when my Senator does not abide by his oath to uphold the Constitution, when my Senator throws the Rule Of Law down the toilet, when my Senator actually agrees with a bill that allows companies to disobey laws if the Attorney General signs off on it - an Attorney General who REFUSES to enforce congressional contempt citations where Executive officials didn't even bother to show up in response to a subpoena - then NO, he is not to be "trusted," he should be held accountable.  Yes, I'm one of the Daily Kos 95%ers, you know why?  Because we feel that shredding the Constitution and the rule of law is NOT the purview of anyone.  Look at your Verizon Privacy Agreement?  I guess you don't care that they just ignored that, right?  Well you know what - a JUDGE is supposed to decide whether what they did was legal, not Congress, it's all there in the Constitution.  Also remember - Webb was a Republican for quite some time.  Sounds like he had a relapse.


Quite honestly (postxian - 2/19/2008 12:04:13 PM)
the expiration of the "Protect America" act was the best outcome we could have expected.  We're better off this way than if the proposed revision had passed with or without telcom immunity.  


Strong Webb supporter (relawson - 2/19/2008 12:18:04 PM)
But, I agree with the poll on this one.  

I agree with Webb 95% of the time.  Good enough for me to continue supporting him - but yeah this vote was mind boggling.



That's pretty much where' I'm at. (Lowell - 2/19/2008 12:21:21 PM)
n/t


I want to know what his reasoning is (Jack Landers - 2/19/2008 12:25:29 PM)
Generally, at times when Webb has voted a different way than I would have, if I get to hear his explanation it's usually at least logical. Something that I may not agree with, but can at least respect.

I'm not happy with this FISA vote, but I'm not furious at Webb.



I'd bet that Webb's (Eric - 2/19/2008 12:39:54 PM)
explanation is logical.  

The issue to me is whether he should have stood his ground based on principle.  I'd like to see a good/real explanation as well, which I'm sure will be logical, but ultimately it looks like he caved for practical reasons.  Which, to me, does not trump principle in this case.



He has a release about it. (Nattering Nabob of Alexandria - 2/19/2008 2:23:12 PM)

http://webb.senate.gov/newsroo...

The gist of it, is that he, Senator Feingold & Tester tried to amend it but couldn't, and then he sent a letter to the House-Senate Conferees to keep the House provisions.

Quote from Webb:
"Our current FISA bill expires in two days. As someone who has decades of experience in dealing with national security matters and classified intelligence, I believed it was necessary to implement a surveillance program that provides professionals an updated set of tools to properly respond to terrorist threats.  However, I plan to urge my colleagues who sit on the Senate-House conference committee to adopt House provisions that better protect Americans from Executive branch overreach."

 



Here Is His Explanation (HisRoc - 2/19/2008 3:20:08 PM)
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroo...

Simply stated, he felt that some kind of authority was necessary rather than letting FISA expire unrenewed.  His ammendments to fix the faulty provisions of the bill failed and he has since sent a letter to the Senate-House conference members asking then to adopt the fixes.



no explanation at all (Nell - 2/20/2008 1:31:27 AM)
How does this 'explanation' account for why Sen. Webb voted for immunity for the telecom corporations?  He voted against the amendment to strip the immunity provision from the bill.

There is no justification whatsoever for his August vote for the PAA or his more recent votes.  Sen. Webb is simply wrong here.  He's not listening to his consituents, to Sen. Feingold, or to himself on the campaign trail in 2006.



Results (phillip123 - 2/19/2008 1:20:12 PM)
I think it would be in the interest of the commonwealth and the Nation to send the results of the poll on to Senator Webb.  Maybe at the same time you could remind him that his state voted overwhelmingly for Obama and that it is time for him to get on board.  He will have to run with the next President on the top of the ticket in 2012.


I believe that Sen. Webb's staff (Lowell - 2/19/2008 1:43:56 PM)
checks this blog occasionally.  


I Think It Would Be... (BP - 2/19/2008 4:10:06 PM)
..."political malpractice" if they didn't.

In fact, I heard a rumor that they have a special red computer terminal that beeps every time a new post goes up on RK.  Has anyone else heard the same thing?



If You Find the Software (HisRoc - 2/19/2008 4:32:14 PM)
That will do that, please post a link here.  I'll make a killing selling it to my consulting clients.
;-}


Here's what I got from Jessica Smith (Catzmaw - 2/19/2008 2:52:54 PM)
Senator Webb's Communications Director:

I know FISA is an emotionally charged issue.  We knew that there would be upset among many, either way.  Webb spent months consulting legal scholars, those in the security community, civil liberty advocates, etc., etc. and decided that we needed a law --if imperfect-- in place.  This was not an unprincipled or whimsical vote.  It was one that took a lot of thought -- and, as you know, he tried hard to perfect the bill to preserve the privacy of innocent Americans.

Senator Webb's office is well aware that I disagreed with him on the vote.  I wrote and told them why, but disappointment that the vote did not go the way I wanted it to does not equate to disappointment in Webb.  He's doing what we elected him to do - considering difficult issues thoughtfully, carefully, and after weighing the factors involved - and then making difficult decisions.  He's not trying to be popular.  He's willing to take the heat for his decisions and will never be a weather vane a la Mitt Romney.  The day Jim Webb starts making decisions based on popularity or his fear of the reaction of the netroots is the day I lose respect for him and start questioning his judgment.



I Haven't Lost My Respect For Senator Webb Either, But... (BP - 2/19/2008 3:29:33 PM)
...both the e-mail you received and the press release posted on Senator Webb's site are classic non-responsive responses.  It seems like his office has settled on some carefully worded language and will continue to repeat it, whether or not it adequately addresses the relevant issues.

From his web site:

"I similarly reject full immunity and prefer a middle-ground solution that would allow court cases to proceed under appropriate circumstances.

Again, I request that conferees adopt provisions in the conference report that more closely track the House-passed FISA bill, or that conferees craft compromise provisions that exceed the "checks and balances" protections and immunity provisions in the Senate-passed FISA bill."

O.K.  So it sounds like Senator Webb rejects "full immunity" for the telecoms but voted against the Dodd Amendment because, unlike Senator Dodd, Senator Webb WOULD grant immunity to the telecoms in "appropriate circumstances."  Also, in his letter to the conferees, he urges the adoption of provisions that "more closely track" the House FISA bill.

My questions are:

1.  What exactly is the "middle-ground" solution Senator Webb prefers?

2.  What are, in Senator Webb's view, the "appropriate circumstances" for granting immunity to telecoms?    

3.  Why, in Senator Webb's view, is FISA's existing good faith legal defense to liability insufficient?

4.  What specific provisions would need to be included in a conference report in order for the report to, in Senator Webb's view, "more closely track" the House FISA bill?

I may have missed them, but I haven't seen the answers to these questions.