RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

My Capitol Visit and Up-Close Observations During FISA Votes

I was in our nation’s capitol from July 3 – 10. Among the highlights of my week-long visit was coffee at the Mayflower Hotel with NQ’s Larry Johnson. It was even more fun conversing with him than reading his blog posts.

Another highlight was watching the FISA votes from the Senate visitors’ gallery at the capitol [Wednesday, July 9]. Senators Clinton and Obama were there, as were Leahy, Dodd, Webb and Specter. It was my version of a star-studded movie premier. Sadly geeky, I know.

As we all know, the three amendments against Telecom Amnesty failed and the FISA bill passed — complete with Telecom Amnesty. One result: we taxpayers may em>never find out the extent to which telecom companies and the Bush Administration had violated our nation’s laws. 

Not only was Wednesday’s vote a blow to the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, it was
also a blow to government accountability.  But I digress.

I went to the Senate gallery about an hour before the voting was scheduled to start.  Being alone, I was able to change seats numerous times as visitors came and went.  Just before the voting started, I managed to get a seat with the broadest view of the chamber.

I’d expected an efficient voting process: i.e., that all senators would take their seats and push buttons that electronically record their votes.  It wasn’t like that.

Instead, Senators trickled into the chamber, most of them not punctually.  Even before the chamber filled up, a lady at the dais slowly and repeatedly read the list of all 100 senators’ names, in alphabetical order, trying to record a vote for each one while most senators were gathered in  clusters, chatting with each other.

It looked like a cocktail party, minus the open bar, though I can’t swear that none of our senators were carrying concealed flasks of hooch.

The gallery visitors were mostly silent until Sen. Barack Obama entered.  Incidentally, he’s as handsome in person as on TV.

Unfortunately, Sen. Obama was chomping on a wad of gum as he made his way around the chamber floor, stopping every few feet to give enthusiastic hand shakes and shoulder pats to his visibly senior, mostly graying colleagues.

Sen. Obama didn’t exactly swagger: it was more like a studiedly relaxed gate — like a high school athlete walking into an awards dinner. 

I was surprised, because Sen. Obama comes off as dignified — even elegant — on TV.  His air was nearly the opposite in person that day.  I half expected him to deliver elaborate, frat-boy handshakes.  I was relieved that he did not.

My advice to Sen. Obama’s handlers: tell him to lose the gum, as it undermines his image among people who are — how shall I say it –  concerned about dignity and maturity.

A few minutes later Sen. Hillary Clinton arrived, and the gallery crowd stirred even more.  I’d hoped that she would glance up to the gallery, so I could wave a subtle hello in her direction.  She did not.

Oddly, Hillary and Barack did not interact during the floor votes — even when they were 10 or 15 feet apart. I didn’t even see them look at each other.  They just kept chatting with other people.

Admittedly, I don’t know what they were thinking, because my mind-reading skills are still in New England, protesting Florida’s oppressive humidity. 

The only interaction I saw between them for what seemed like nearly an hour was when Sen. Obama was getting ready to leave. As he headed for one of the four exits, he made a pit stop in front of  Sen. Clinton, formally shook her hand, and patted her upper arm. 

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) also chatted briefly.  The interaction didn’t look unpleasant, but neither of them made efforts to smile.  McCaskill, as you may recall, has been parroting misleading sound bites in favor of Telecom Amnesty since at least February.  Hillary has been against it for months.

Sen. Obama and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA) — who led cheers for Telecom Amnesty– briefly interacted, both sporting smiles. 

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who has repeatedly spoken against Telecom Amnesty, interacted with Sen. Obama twice.  Once, Leahy’s back was toward me, and Obama was smiling.  Once, when Obama was talking to two other senators, Leahy approached and tried to say something but couldn’t seem to find a place to interject.  After a few moments, he walked away.  I have no idea what that was about because I don’t have bionic ears, but Leahy didn’t look particularly jovial.

Soon thereafter, Leahy approached Hillary.  They talked and smiled for a few minutes.  Leahy was one of the Party Elders who publicly endorsed Obama early this year, urging Hillary to drop out of the race. 

I wonder if Sen. Leahy now regrets that gesture, given that Sen. Obama  ended up opposing Leahy’s strong stance against the FISA bill and Telecom Amnesty, while Sen. Clinton ended up voting with Leahy.

That’s it for my people watching. I don’t know what to make of my observations: I just thought I’d share them, for whatever they’re worth.

Incidentally, I was also at the Senate gallery on Tuesday [July 8] to hear debates about the FISA bill and Telecom Amnesty. 

An actual debate never really happened.  It was more like individual senators taking turns making speeches.  Except for the people at the dais, including a gaggle of interns or pages (I don’t know the difference), the chamber was almost empty.

When I first arrived, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) was speaking.  At least I think it was Bond: the reason I’m not sure is that in person he looks about 20 years older than in his website photo. 

Many other senators also look different in person than on their websites.  My advice: update your photos, so that visitors can recognize you more easily. Don’t worry: we taxpayers are the ones paying the photographers.

Anyway, Sen. Bond made misleading statements about Telecom Amnesty, saying that telecom companies would refuse cooperate with governmental efforts to track terrorists in the future if they could be held legally liable for doing so. 

Apparently, Sen. Bond wasn’t aware that if the government presents a telecom company with a valid warrant, the telecom company would have to cooperate and couldn’t be held liable for doing so.  I found his apparent unawareness stunning, because Sen. Bond graduated from law school at the top of his class.

I stuck around for a half hour or so and got to hear Sens. Arlen Specter and Leahy argue against Telecom Amnesty.  Wanting to leave on a high note, I departed shortly thereafter.

  • anonymous

    Thanks for the update!

  • roseeriter

    Obama’s probably chewing nicorette gum-

  • socalannie

    Interesting. Thanks for sharing Deb!

  • NoObamislamists

    Who could have known that the attack and destruction of the constitution happens among friendly, even jovial, banter and interaction among colleagues, even amongst those who are against the FISA immunity.

    Pathetic really.

  • kiki
  • HARP

    The Senate…The most expensive sand box in America.

  • HARP

    Guess that sort of makes this Irrelevant:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

  • DaveTV

    testing

  • http://deleted imustprotest

    Maybe we didn’t hear him whisper, “just messing with you”

  • http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/ 30yrdem-not any more

    OT…
    Mystery, Clarification and Obfuscation of Obama’s Birth Certificate Forgery
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2045339/posts

    Is this a reputable place to get information?

  • hillarysmygirl

    If seeing Senator Clinton in action constitutes being a geek, then I’m a bigger geek…I actually gasped when I read that you got to watch the vote! What a nerd I am!!

    Thanks for the report! I’ve only been to D.C. once, but the next time I go, I will see if I can go to a Senate session. You made it sound great.

  • veritas

    Chris Dodd said that he supported Obama because the FISA bill was so important to him and Hillary didn’t show up (her vote was not needed) and Obama did-
    Wonder how he squares his sucking up for VP now with the guy who voted against what he said was one of the most important pieces of legislation in his life? These guys sure can spin whoppers-

  • http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/ 30yrdem-not any more
  • http://investigatebarackobama.wordpress.com/puma/ kat in your hat

    Can you say Hypocrite?

    Democrats Look to Lobbyist to Finance Convention:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14convention.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

  • fooj

    Thanks so much for sharing your observations.

    These bloviating idiots disgust me. Wonder when they finally decide that it’s time to do THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE? Grrrrrrr…

  • DoroB

    Hillary couldn’t have been too thrilled that Obama was voting for FISA. He probably disappoints her everyday.

  • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

    ROTFL!!!

  • ginaswo still says no Uhhbama

    I am equally nerdy if watching CSPAN avidly is nerdy!!
    I love it, I would really love to see it in person!!

  • Dawnelle

    I watch them on cspan quite often. Like a bird on a wire (feels like) LOL

    Leahy – BIG GROWL!! this Puma would like to claw swat that traitor out da door!

  • Sassy

    I did watch the Senate quite often…not now, for I’m not fond of many of them at the moment. It took me a while to understand their procedures, cloture votes etc., but I did learn a lot in the past. Senator Leahy really shocked me with his attitude toward Senator Clinton…I have watched him often in the Judiciary committee and I thought he was a statesman. They do have a great deal of “dead” time on the floor…hope they really are working in their offices!

  • http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/ Deb Cupples

    Actually, one doesn’t chew nicorette like normal gum. One tucks it between the cheek and gum and occasionally bites into it.

  • http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/ Deb Cupples

    All you have to do is ask your senator’s staff for gallery passes.

  • socalannie

    LMAO!

  • fif

    Thanks for the bird’s eye view. The only thing I did not agree with:

    The gallery visitors were mostly silent until Sen. Barack Obama entered. Incidentally, he’s as handsome in person as on TV.

    I just do not see it. Not my type at all. And now, after all that’s happened (and continues to happen), I can’t stand to look at him.

  • Mary Kay

    Wow… just… wow…

  • http://www.belltoll.com belltoll

    I still strongly believe we must put term limits on these career politicians. A president can only serve two terms. Why do these folks get a forty or fifty year free ride? I know they must be relected, but doesn’t a twenty, thirty, or even forty year legislative posittion invite corruption?

  • JozefAL

    For starters, the two-term (10-year total) limit on Presidents was done for (not surprisingly) POLITICAL reasons. After the GOP took control of the House and Senate in the 1946 elections, their first order of business was what became the 22nd Amendment (it passed Congress on March 21, 1947–11 weeks TO THE DAY that the 80th Congress was seated). The GOP had made some fairly impressive gains in the 1938 off-year elections and had the potential to pick up even more (if not gain control of Congress) in 1940, but the FDR “ruined” their hopes by running for an unprecedented 3rd term (the GOP did add 5 more Senate seats–on top of 6 won in 1938–but lost 7 in the House, after having picked up 80 in 1938*), and many in the GOP remained bitter about FDR’s decision (there was general discontent in the GOP over FDR’s decision in 1944 to run for a 4th term but since the country was at war, it seemed very unlikely that the President’s own party would change horses, so to speak).
    The proposed Amendment took into consideration reality. Truman had become President upon FDR’s death (note–at this time, there was nothing that had firmly established the order of Presidential succession; a VP ascended only as “acting” President but this was only based on standard Parliamentary procedure) and served out FDR’s term before running for his own term in 1948. The Amendment had been sent to the states at this point but had only been ratified by 21 (of the 36 necessary) by the 1948 election. New York had been the 21st on 3/9/48 but the 22nd state to ratify, South Dakota, didn’t do so until after Truman’s inauguration–the day after, in fact, 1/21/49. By the end of 1950, only 2 more states had ratified the Amendment. Then came 1951 when, in just over a month–from Jan 25 to Feb 27–12 states ratified the Amendment, and the Amendment was added to the Constitution.
    Under the wording of the Amendment, Truman (if he wanted) could have run for another term (technically, Truman could have run as many times as he wanted) but he chose not to run, largely due to the Korean War’s “stalemate” (that’s not the word I want, but I’ve drawn a blank as to a better term).
    The way the Amendment works, if a President has to leave office (for whatever reason) and the VP assumes the office, the new President faces a limitation on his time in office. If he serves as President for two years or less before an election, he may serve for two more terms; if he’s served more than two years (even if just by one day), he may serve only one more term. The reason is that Amendment 22 limits the President to a total of 10 years in office (in the first situation you have a 2 years or less term + a 4 year term + a 4 year term; the second situation presents a 2 year plus term + a 4 year term, which means another 4-year term would exceed 10 years total).
    Now, for Congress to be subjected to term limits, the Congress has to propose an amendment and then it has to pass both houses and then be sent to the States. That last part is the easy part. The first part isn’t that difficult but the “pass both houses” is where we run into trouble. (Even the wording could pose a problem since many members of Congress move from one House to the other during their career. Too few years total would definitely kill it while a limit on total time in each House without an overall limit wouldn’t make much for any real change.)

    *Going into the 1938 election, the GOP had only 89 seats in the House and a mere 17 in the Senate.

  • Linda K

    I agree, I don’t see it at all either.

blog comments powered by Disqus