Yesterday we here in Colorado learned a little more about our Democratic candidate for Senate, Congressman Mark Udall. And what we learned wasn’t pretty. Udall, along with 104 other collaborationist Dems, voted in favor of Bush’s latest Constitution-gutting initiative, a FISA “compromise” that makes all our talk about freedom in the US ring even hollower than it did already.
Russ Feingold’s take on the sell-out is spot-on:
â€œThe proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the Presidentâ€™s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.â€
â€œAs I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting Americanâ€™s civil liberties by rejecting this measure.â€
Oddly, I’m not finding a comment on Udall’s Web site.
Am I a little hot? You betcha. Colorado already has its share of Vichy Democrats (faux-Dem Ken Salazar and his halfwit little brother John, for instance), and right now I’m sitting here asking myself what’s the practical difference between a corporatist Republican and a progressive who votes like one.
Maybe I’ll calm down. Maybe someone will convince me that there was a good, pragmatic reason to hurl the 4th Amendment under the bus. Maybe I’ll decide that it’s a bad idea to sit on my hands while the state elects Bob “Mt. McKinley” Schaffer just to send a pointed message – that we’re goddamned sick and tired of fake progressives who pussy out as soon as their seats on the gravy train are threatened by an opponent’s “weak on terrurists” schtick.
If you’re going to abridge the Constitution, you’re going to need a better reason than the ones you have now – protecting telecoms that knowingly and enthusiastically abetted an illegal spying program on American citizens and trying, I assume, to insulate yourself against electioneering charges that you’re a weak-on-security Boulder librul. Novel strategy there, Mark. Defending yourself against accusations that you’re a pansy by acting like a pansy.
Yes, Mark Udall, I just called you a pussy. I don’t know if you’re weak on terror or weak or defense, but you proved yesterday that you’re damned sure weak. And you were especially weak on freedom, an issue that a few of us registered voters do, in fact, still care about.
A few minutes ago I sent this note to Congressman Udall via his Web site.
Thanks to your support of George Bush’s assault on the Constitution today I’m now in search of a new candidate to support in the state’s Senatorial election. If you’re going to act like a Republican on the issues that matter to us the most, I’m going to treat you like one at the ballot box.
That’s not all I said. I promised to use whatever tools I had available to make my feelings about his gutlessness known, and you (and he) may consider this post my first shot. If you’re the sort who believes that no person or corporation is more important than our Constitutional guarantees of liberty – and in particular if you’re a Coloradan – I encourage you to click here and let him know.