Of Mice and Men

Yesterday, when the Democratic Senators rose to speak on behalf of their amendments it was clear which of the speakers were men and which were clowns mice.

Chuck Schumer took his 10 minutes, asked that it be increased to 12 minutes because he had so much to say. This was interesting, we thought, maybe he's catching some of the passion that millions of Americans are trying to imbue into the Democratic caucus. Defending the Constitution, rejecting a criminal Administration, restoring checks and balances, protecting the rule of law, yes, this is something to feel passionate about!

Schumer then said that if he doesn't need all 12 minutes, then roll minutes over to his colleague. Whatever, get to it! And then, Schumer, on his feet in the middle of a debate over Bush's perversion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, introduced a resolution to praise a football team. He used over half of his time talking about sports. This Equals Clown.

Conversely, here is what Russ Feingold said of the issue:

How has the debate overall come to be framed so incorrectly, as you suggest?
One reason is that there’s been an inadequate response to the Bush-Cheney scare tactics. They’ve been successful every time—in the Iraq War, with the Patriot Act—[in saying] “If we’re not given these powers immediately, we will be attacked.” These are bogus claims. The problem is with many people, including Democrats, who fail to stand up and say, “We feel just as strongly as you do. And we don’t want you invading our privacy without any court review.”
Supporters of the PAA say that if these calls and e-mails were subject to the regular FISA court, it would take hundreds of lawyer and analyst hours to prepare them for the appropriate review.
Listen, a criticism like that just shows no understanding of what’s going on here. Every time a foreign conversation runs through a transmitter in L.A., there was an archaic technicality in the law that would require individualized warrants [in order for the government to intercept them]. We all said, fine, we agree with changing that, but in cases when the program ends up impacting Americans, there has to be some oversight.
What’s the status of your amendments? It’s been suggested that in the consent agreement to allow debate, Republicans are allowing straight majority votes only on amendments they know will fail—including yours.
We’re trying to make a record here, and to show who voted for what. My prediction is this thing will go through; it will be challenged and go through the courts. And eventually a Supreme Court with something like seven Republican-appointed judges will strike down the worst parts of it. This is a long-term battle to protect the rights of the American people.
In the modern political climate you’re more likely to hear about amnesty with respect to undocumented workers than you are about the amnesty for the phone and Internet companies who helped the government break the law before the act was passed.
Oh, I think there’s tremendous feeling that there’s a problem here. In some ways I think it goes deeper than immigration. People see their own personal liberties affected. And we’ve seen that the telecom immunity does offend people. People may be nervous about giving a free pass [on immigration]. But what’s gonna bother them even more are the types of things I’m describing here: the level to which their privacy is being subjected to a “trust me” government that impacts their daily freedom and privacy. It really is disturbing to people with any kind of common sense at all.
from Newsweek, via the CREDOblog

Feingold: The problem is with many people, including Democrats, who fail to stand up and say, “We feel just as strongly as you do. And we don’t want you invading our privacy without any court review.”

Yes. Those people are the problem.

NOBODY thinks that the problem with Schumer is that he fails to stand up and say that the New York Giants won a game, hip hip hooray. Give me G. Give me an I. Give me a A. ...No.

Give me a real Senator.