next »

[Carol Gee]

Read 'em and weep . . . Final FISA deal reached, vote in House may come on Friday, according to Reuters.  There is a chance that the FISA bill will be voted on at the same time as the Supplemental Appropriations bill, which is even sneakier.  What follows are the best posts to be found on the subject, along with a few more traditional references.

Blogasm -- Strange Bedfellows: Bloggers from the left and right team up with the ACLU to fight telecom immunity (6/19/08 - 12:37 AM)

ACLU --  Condemns FISA Deal, Declares Surveillance Bill Unconstitutional (6/19/2008)

Emptywheel -- The FISA bill (6/19/08 - 10:15 AM) FYI: Here are the first two comments after the post:

1)  Bushie --    June 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am.  I called the Obama campaign today and asked Obama to come out publicly against immunity. The person who I talked to said he’d had several calls on this and would pass it along.
Call 866-675-2008 option 6 to speak to someone.                                                           
2)  wavpeac    -- June 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am.       No answer and no way to leave a message on the above number. When you ask to transfer to an attendant by pressing zero you go back to the original message. IT’s a circle with no way to leave a message. My guess is that his machine is full?? I am going to the web at www.BarackObama.com.  Just letting you know.

                         

TPM Muckraker -- Lawmakers reach deal over government surveillance powers (6/19/08 - 11:37 AM)

Firedoglake -- FISA: Screwed, Blued and Tattooed  (6/19/08 - 12:00 PM)

Glenn Greenwald @ Salon.com -- George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of Democratic Congress (6/19/08 - 12:26 PM)  Memeorandum listing for this and many related stories.

ProPublica -- Surveillance bill compromise likely to deliver immunity for telecoms (6/19/08 - 12:55 PM)

Carpetbagger Report -- 'Compromise' reached on surveillance powers, retroactive immunity gets green light (6/19/08 - 12:40 PM)

Obsidian Wings -- FISA "Compromise" (6/19/08 - 1:31 P.M)

Threat Level -- Dems agree to expand domestic spying, grant telecoms amnesty (6/19/08 - 3:09 PM)Think Progress -- New wiretapping bill dubbed 'repugnant' and 'a capitulation." (6/19/08 - 3:39 PM)


For Reference Only:

Wall Street Journal -- Lawmakers reach deal to expand surveillance (subscription required)

Red State -- The Republican view - Ugh!

Copy of the bill/Courtesy of Politico -- 114 pages, pdf.

New York Times -- Deal Reached in Congress to Rewrite Rules on Wiretapping (6/20/08)

I have no words left for this at this point.  I am stunned.

[tlees2]

The Dems are as much influenced by the military-industrial complex as the Republicans only they are more liberal (pro-choice, etc.) about it.  So while it is crucial to elect Obama it is not realistic to think that he and the Democrats will solve all of our problems.

[Carol Gee]

The Dems are as much influenced by the military-industrial complex as the Republicans only they are more liberal (pro-choice, etc.) about it.  So while it is crucial to elect Obama it is not realistic to think that he and the Democrats will solve all of our problems.

tlees2, I, too am an early riser, and right now rather sleep deprived, given the time that I put this piece up last night.

I had never thought of the issue the way you did.  But you are right; it is a systems problem:

• (Military =) Admiral Mike McConnell is the Director of National Security (over FISA).  General Michael Hayden is the head of the CIA.  The Pentagon has an unlimited "black" budget.
• (Industrial = ) telecoms, banks, hospitals, schools, libraries, etc., etc., with NSA and FBI, are now full blown into the domestic spying business, with an occasional foray into little "perp walks" such as the "Bear Stearns Show" yesterday.  I am writing this courtesy of ATT&T, my ISP.

 
My telecom, with immunity, will share all my ranting and criticism with the two Mikes (above) and the two Roberts (Robert Mueller and Robert Gates),  trusted by our lily-livered legislators because they seem like good men all.  

I am 71.  I hope to live to 2014 when the proposed new FISA again comes up for review.  God help us all.

Post script:  Article IV -- Persons and houses to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasoable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[The Facilitatrix]

I had C-SPAN on during the vote today, and they were taking calls from just plain folks.  With one exception (a Republican who sounded like a codger who'd die before he let you wrest the gun out of his hands), the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who called in decried this amendment.

There was outrage both at telecom immunity and erosion of the Fourth Amendment, and the two factors were linked in their opinions.  Even if the telecoms got immunity and the FISA allowances for surveillance weren't broadened, it still would have been an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights.  And vice versa.  This is what I got from the callers.

If, as I've heard and read over and over today, the Democrats fear that there would be a voter backlash against them for not being tough enough on security, all they'd have to do is to listen to those callers and be disabused of that notion.

If, as Jonathan Turley opined on Olbermann a couple of days ago, the Democrats fear as much as anyone that they would be found complicit in the wiretaps and surveillance that have already occurred if the telecoms didn't receive immunity, then that's a problem that needs to be solved by getting those bastards out and some new ones in.  (I presuppose that they'd still be bastards, but maybe they'd be a little more careful when it came to their constituents' rights.)

It's an ugly, ugly situation, and I wish that Obama hadn't come out and said that he'd support the amendment.  Give me all the practical reasons for his doing so, and I'll understand them.  But I'll still wish he hadn't.  And I wish that those 105 Democrats hadn't once again betrayed our trust.  And I wish I could get past my feelings of hopelessness and just be royally pissed off.

[Carol Gee]

. . . the Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who called in decried this amendment.

There was outrage both at telecom immunity and erosion of the Fourth Amendment, and the two factors were linked in their opinions. 

If, as I've heard and read over and over today, the Democrats fear that there would be a voter backlash against them for not being tough enough on security, all they'd have to do is to listen to those callers and be disabused of that notion.

. . .  the Democrats fear as much as anyone that they would be found complicit in the wiretaps and surveillance that have already occurred if the telecoms didn't receive immunity, then that's a problem that needs to be solved by getting those bastards out and some new ones in. . .  

. . . Obama hadn't come out and said that he'd support the amendment.  Give me all the practical reasons for his doing so, and I'll understand them.  But I'll still wish he hadn't.  And I wish that those 105 Democrats hadn't once again betrayed our trust.  And I wish I could get past my feelings of hopelessness and just be royally pissed off.

I couldn't watch C-SPan during the debacle; it made my stomach knot.  I appreciate your description.

I have never thought about the question of early complicity by the Democratic leadership.  That fear might explain a lot.  I wish they had the kind of fire of Robert Wexler.  He does his job every day without worrying a bit about getting fired.  They should live so long!

You and I - and most of us here - understand hopelessness, Facilitatrix.  It can be paralyzing.  Maybe we're all a little paralyzed these days.  Thanks for not being so.

[The Facilitatrix]

You and I - and most of us here - understand hopelessness, Facilitatrix.  It can be paralyzing.  Maybe we're all a little paralyzed these days.  Thanks for not being so.

It gives me agita, but I try to stay angry about the more important of these things.  That's my way to avoid paralysis.

I have never thought about the question of early complicity by the Democratic leadership.  That fear might explain a lot.  I wish they had the kind of fire of Robert Wexler.  He does his job every day without worrying a bit about getting fired.  They should live so long!

It's twice now that I've heard Turley talk along these lines, but he was very direct this last time.  I'm going to post the clip here because it's really thought provoking.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/DrKPYYpW_Pc&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/DrKPYYpW_Pc&rel=1</a>

After the FISA vote yesterday, I obsessively copied the list of who voted how, checked to see if the Blue Dogs were in lock step with the Republicans (they were), and got full names and districts for all of the Democrats.  I don't know what I'm going to do yet, but I want to let the 105 know that they aren't doing this country any good.  I'd like to appeal to their sense of honor or whatever, but it's all too likely that honor is a foreign concept to some (many?) of them.

Hell, if I can go through the trouble to get information on Rep. Thaddeus Cotter* (a tool from MI), find out the name of a high school team in his district (to make a point about his presentation), and write and send him a chiding fax, I can do something about the Dems.

I was appalled to find out that my representative, Norm Dicks, voted for the amendment.  I was shocked as well, because I've actually had correspondence with him about the telecom immunity issue, and he'd said that he opposed it.  So calling him was my first thing.

I also want to thank the ones who stood up for what's right.  They are the ones—in addition to Wexler and Kucinich—whom I'd hoped would do the right thing, and they did.  Conyers, DeFazio, Ellison, Eshoo, Frank, Inslee, Lee, Lofgren, Rangel, Sanchez (Linda, who has greatly impressed me in hearings), Speier, Tsongas, Waters, and, of course, my beloved Waxman were among the strong ones.

*Thaddeus Cotter took five minutes of floor time, about 15 minutes after the FISA vote, for an utterly gratuitous and self-indulgent exercise in what's the worst about Republicans.  He gave a "presentation," complete with charts, about what "Democrat Speak" really means.  He substituted regressive for progressive, the 1970s for the future, socialism for health care, "you" for the rich, and so on.  A friend I told about it said that my "eloquence" was wasted on him, but it made me feel better to, as my friend quipped, "write him a new one."

[tlees2]

So why won't Conyers push impeachment.  I still think Bush must have dirt on the guy.

[Carol Gee]

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

"A Sad Day for the Fourth Amendment" was the title of my (8/5/07) S/SW post about the passage of the Protect America Act.  This week was an even sadder day for Amendment IV.  I have been unable to write much this week about the sorry state of affairs of civil liberties in this nation.  Therefore, I turn to poetry as I often do when struck with such paralyzing writer's block.  This post is --

A writing on right's might. . .

The Might of Right -- The Rule of Law as opposed to Injustice.
Right as opposed to Wrong.
Wronged as opposed to Righteous.
Righteous as opposed to Immoral.
Moral as opposed to Political.
Political as opposed to Right.
Right as opposed to Left.
Left wing as opposed to Right wing.
Rights upheld as opposed to Injustice.

The Might of Write -- Freedom of Speech as opposed to No Rule of Law.
Write as opposed to Speak.
Speak as opposed to Right.
Write as opposed to Phone.
Phone as opposed to Letter.
Write as opposed to Print.
Print as opposed to Digital.
Write as opposed to Talk.
Talk as opposed to Shout.

The Might of Rite -- The Rule of Law as opposed to Lawlessness.
Rite as opposed to Consent.
Consent as opposed to Rebellious.
Rite as opposed to Chaos.
Chaos as opposed to Organized.
Rite as opposed to Informal.
Informal as opposed to Formal.
Rite as opposed to Secular.
Secular as opposed to Righteous.

Reference: The Late Fourth Amendment
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Facilitatrix, thanks so much for the Turley video.  It would make a good transcript.  Here is a link to my friend Libby's post at the Impolitic.  I furnish it for two reasons.  1) Her take on Obama's decision about this has some wisdom, in my opinion.  2) Libby linked to an excellent "list of those Members to be mad at," too.

tlees2, you have asked a key question.  It seems that the FISA issue and impeachment are intertwined in our minds.  There is too much of a track record of success outside the rule of law, without any accountability for the responsible leaders.  It is a matter of being numbed into submission by this combined with the calendar.  No one has the heart or guts for the fight any more.  Sadly.

I am leaving town tomorrow for a month in another state where my Internet access will be a bit limited.  I say this so you know that I have not dropped out of sight.  Peace to all.

[The Facilitatrix]

So why won't Conyers push impeachment.  I still think Bush must have dirt on the guy.

Geez, I hope not.  He's one of the few good ones, in my opinion.  But his wife has been a little out there recently.  Something about a dust-up with a city council(?).

Maybe it's as simple as he's got so much on his plate right now, he can't think about how huge impeachment would be.  It would all fall on him, as chair of the judiciary committee.

It's frustrating nonetheless.

A writing on right's might. . .

This is wonderful, Carol.  You've achieved economy of language and a wealth of meaning.

Reference: The Late Fourth Amendment

This is tragically apt.

Sometimes I think that they just don't realize what they're doing, because their lives are so privileged.  But something I noted wryly was that William Jefferson was one of the "nay" votes.  He may be a complete crook, but he has very intimate knowledge about what it means to have your privacy invaded.  Maybe all of our representatives and senators should feel as if they have nothing more to lose, so they can vote with their consciences and not their self-interests.

tlees2, you have asked a key question.  It seems that the FISA issue and impeachment are intertwined in our minds.

I don't think it's just in our minds.  It's all intertwined. 

All the flouting of Congressional subpoenas for "executive privilege" and my belief that there isn't a department or agency under the Executive's control that hasn't been politicized are part of it, too.  The legal opinions written in anticipation of challenges to the illegal actions they knew they were taking—before they took them—are perhaps the most blatant example of their disregard for checks and balances, but everything else just compounds them.

This has been a systematic dismantling of our government from day one.  I don't go along with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the attacks hadn't occurred, they'd have come up with something else to get the ball rolling for a fearful population.  They have cynically created greater fear than the attacks produced, relying on the constant chants about "security" to keep Americans afraid so they could accomplish all of this.

It's all intertwined, and it takes someone like Kucinich to list the crimes all in one document.

But the Democrats in Congress are too worried about staying there, and the Democrats out in the field are too concerned about getting Obama in to take the short logical step from where we are to a country where it won't matter if Obama or any Democrat gets elected.  It'll be too late.

I've seen all of this played out allegorically on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  The executive branch holds the demons who are bent on bringing about the apocalypse, and I ask myself, "What would Buffy do?"  She'd kick some serious ass and send the demons back to hell and close off any future access to our world.

Alas, we don't have an Executive Slayer.  But Kucinich and Wexler would make great Scoobies, if one came along.

[Carol Gee]

A writing on right's might. . .

This is wonderful, Carol.  You've achieved economy of language and a wealth of meaning.

Reference: The Late Fourth Amendment

This is tragically apt.

Sometimes I think that they just don't realize what they're doing, because their lives are so privileged.  But something I noted wryly was that William Jefferson was one of the "nay" votes.  He may be a complete crook, but he has very intimate knowledge about what it means to have your privacy invaded.  Maybe all of our representatives and senators should feel as if they have nothing more to lose, so they can vote with their consciences and not their self-interests.

tlees2, you have asked a key question.  It seems that the FISA issue and impeachment are intertwined in our minds.

I don't think it's just in our minds.  It's all intertwined. 

All the flouting of Congressional subpoenas for "executive privilege" and my belief that there isn't a department or agency under the Executive's control that hasn't been politicized are part of it, too.  The legal opinions written in anticipation of challenges to the illegal actions they knew they were taking—before they took them—are perhaps the most blatant example of their disregard for checks and balances, but everything else just compounds them.

This has been a systematic dismantling of our government from day one.  I don't go along with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the attacks hadn't occurred, they'd have come up with something else to get the ball rolling for a fearful population.  They have cynically created greater fear than the attacks produced, relying on the constant chants about "security" to keep Americans afraid so they could accomplish all of this.

It's all intertwined, and it takes someone like Kucinich to list the crimes all in one document.

But the Democrats in Congress are too worried about staying there, and the Democrats out in the field are too concerned about getting Obama in to take the short logical step from where we are to a country where it won't matter if Obama or any Democrat gets elected.  It'll be too late.

I've seen all of this played out allegorically on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  The executive branch holds the demons who are bent on bringing about the apocalypse, and I ask myself, "What would Buffy do?"  She'd kick some serious ass and send the demons back to hell and close off any future access to our world.

Alas, we don't have an Executive Slayer.  But Kucinich and Wexler would make great Scoobies, if one came along.

Facilitatrix, thanks for your kind words.  It strikes me that the difference between us and those who govern us, is often whether reading is part of the equation.  Our current president does not read.  Nor do enough others.  If they did take in some of the wisdom (Buffy has wisdom, too) of those that went before them, they might understand their folly.  It must be that "end times" craziness.  I am trying to just stay "present in the day."  Peace.

[tlees2]

"So why won't Conyers push impeachment.  I still think Bush must have dirt on the guy.

Geez, I hope not.  He's one of the few good ones, in my opinion.  But his wife has been a little out there recently.  Something about a dust-up with a city council(?).

Maybe it's as simple as he's got so much on his plate right now, he can't think about how huge impeachment would be.  It would all fall on him, as chair of the judiciary committee.

It's frustrating nonetheless."

Well, if Conyers can't hold Bush and Cheney accountable so that future generations will know that you can get away with war crimes in this country because he's too busy doing something else, I would say that he needs to rethink his priorities as chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

[The Facilitatrix]

Well, if Conyers can't hold Bush and Cheney accountable so that future generations will know that you can get away with war crimes in this country because he's too busy doing something else, I would say that he needs to rethink his priorities as chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

I wasn't implying that this is a good thing at all.  More of a possible explanation than an excuse.

But if he's the only one on the judiciary committed to impeachment, it'd be nigh on impossible to go it alone.  I don't want to think of Conyers acting out of political motivation, but ultimately it's all political in the Capitol.

[tlees2]

Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th
 
Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th
 
Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th
 
Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd
 
Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th
 
Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th
 
Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th
 
Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th
 
Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th
 
Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th
 
Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th
 
Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th
 
Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th
 
Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th
 
Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th
 
Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27
 
Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd
 
Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th
 
Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th
 
Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th
 
Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th
 
Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th
 

[tlees2]

These are the Dems on the committee - notice Wexler's name.

[The Facilitatrix]

These are the Dems on the committee - notice Wexler's name.

Hmmm.  Most of these people voted nay on FISA.  Sixteen out of 22:

Baldwin, Cohen, Delahunt, Ellison, Jackson-Lee, Johnson, Lofgren, Nadler, Sánchez, Scott, Sutton, Wasserman Schultz, Waters, Watt, Weiner, and Wexler, as well as Conyers.

That's a more significant number than I thought.  This is a pretty progressive committee, at least in this vote.  It's definitely a minority of judicial committee Democrats who voted for it.

But Pelosi's the sticking point for everything, isn't she?  She and Hoyer.  Add in "Given 'em hell Harry" Reid (as his emails to me proclaimed) stonewalling in the senate, and nothing can even get started.

But if Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment were turned over to the House Judicial Committee, and it's got this many on it who were strong enough to vote against the FISA amendment, why is the conventional wisdom that his Articles will languish there forever?  If anyone knows how that works, I'd like to know.

[PseudoCyAnts]

Excerpt of June 25, 2008 Press Release issued by MAPLight dot org

House Dems who changed their vote to support FISA Bill, giving immunity to TELCOS, received, on average,
$8,359 in PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint

MAPLight.org's research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week’s FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:
[. . .]
Comparing Democrats' Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.

All House Members (June 20th vote:)
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)

[The Facilitatrix]

All House Members (June 20th vote:)
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$9,659 to each member of the House voting "YES" (105-Dem, 188-Rep)
$4,810 to each member of the House voting "NO" (128-Dem, 1-Rep)

Money well spent, as far as the telecoms are concerned.

Are there any stats on the senators?  This might be a predictor of how the vote will go when they get back from their holiday.

Do you think the influence on the Congress by their "supporters" is as blatant as when Cheney developed the energy strategy in meetings with the oil companies?  How many pharma reps sat in with the Repub Congress before they approved Bush's disastrous Medicare drug policies?

I had a brainstorm last week that the time has come for Congress to telecommute.  The technology is ubiquitous, and the benefits (to the American people) would be many.  Every member of Congress would be able to participate in every vote. If I were a resident of Illinois, the votes Obama's missed would really be irking me about now.

It would let senators and representatives stay in their states and districts more, keeping in better touch with what their constituents actually want to happen—or not to happen.  Telepresence on a screen in whatever chamber would allow speechifying, and IMs between members could substitute for intrusive conversations on the floor.

For those worried that they'd pay less attention to the proceedings if they weren't on site, I'd suggest that they watch about an hour of C-SPAN to see (and hear) just how much moving around and talking those not speaking at the moment do.  It might actually be less distracting for them if they had to stay at their laptops.

And something that might just lessen the influence that these lobbies have is the greater effort lobbyists would have to exert if senators and representatives spent more time at home than they currently do.

Add to that the expense of all that flying they do—and the strain on resources for all that flying—and this may be an idea whose time has come.

Of course, they'd have to be forced into doing it.  I suspect that a major reason most of them run for office is to get to Washington for the schmoozing, parties, and perks there.  It wouldn't work for all of them all the time, but I'd like at least to get the rules about voting changed, so we could have every member vote on everything every time.

[Carol Gee]

I had a brainstorm last week that the time has come for Congress to telecommute. . .

This is an interesting idea.  The one difficulty I see with it is what that would do to the work of committees.  The committee hearings are the most interesting part of the congressional process for me.
The advantage of Members and Senators being in their districts would be that plain citizens might get a chance to actually speak with them.  That's a long shot, of course, for those who have not paid for access.

[The Facilitatrix]

The one difficulty I see with it is what that would do to the work of committees.

True, but it's not insurmountable.  I have no illusions that the Congress will give up all their traveling (and the VIP perks that go with it), but telepresence could cut it back substantially.  Committees could meet via conferencing, and then hearings be scheduled for when everyone's in town.  It would take some organization, and the more shoot-from-the-hip kinds would have more trouble than the workaday members would.

The thing is that we're all going to have to adapt to increasing fuel prices to varying degrees.  I hope that the age of huge lots and McMansions is on its way out, because it's all such a waste.  The responsible thing will be to leave open lands for all of us to use, while we live more densely day to day, to cut back on transportation and heating/cooling expenses, among so many others.  A centralized infrastructure is less expensive to build and maintain, and it uses way fewer resources of all kinds.

Of course, it's the rich who'll be the last to make any changes in their lives, but I'd like to see our Congress stop behaving as if they're in their jobs for the money rather than for the service.  Of course, many of them are rich, but a lot aren't.  Perhaps a cap on reimbursable travel expenses might start the ball rolling for using technology over travel.  But who's going to have the spine to propose that one?

Just at lunch today, a client told me that one of our Washington representatives has been shamed into changing his six round trips a month to DC from first class on United ($1,200 a ticket) to first class on Alaska ($450 a ticket).  (I suspect it's Dave Reichert.  He's got his eye on higher office in the near future, I'm sure.)  If awareness about fuel prices hadn't exposed the situation, he'd have happily kept on with the status quo, in spite of the cost to the taxpayers.

And I just read this morning that the only ones to miss the Medicare vote in the Senate last week were McCain and Kennedy.  But with teleconferencing and telepresence, maybe even Kennedy* could have voted.  Heck, he could have been the vote they needed for cloture.

*Kennedy has a note from his doctor, no doubt.