The Power of Just Saying No

As in, "Sorry Mr. President, we're not in any hurry to pass a FISA bill. The bad FISA law that you and your Republican watercarriers terrorized us into passing shouldn't stand, and if you're not going to work with us to make the narrow fix that's called for, then we'll just let it expire and let the prior law come back into effect. Unless you work with us, that's what you'll force us to do."

Why can't Jane understand this?

Come on Jane, at Least Make a Show of Engaging Your Critics

Jane, I get it that you're trying to show that you're engaging with your online critics (1, 2) who have blasted your pre-capitulation stance on FISA. But if you're going to respond, don't you think it would be wise to ensure your responses aren't word-for-word identical to each other? Particularly since each writer is making a different set of points and claims?

As one of the critics that Harman responded to explains, Harman is saying something is rubbish, but she's not saying what exactly.

If Harman really wants to get credit for engaging, she'll stop the hit and run tactics, and will give a clear response.

The Spotlight's Now On Harman

That Daily Kos diary I linked to below was responded to by Jane Harman on Daily Kos. She posted her own diary:

What rubbish! For those like me who insist that the President’s domestic surveillance program must comply fully with the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, the only way for Congress to get there is with a veto-proof majority. That's why I'm working with Republicans. Got a better idea?

I opposed the FISA-gutting Protect America Act last August and supported the much-improved H.R. 3773, which did not include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. I call on the White House to do more than share selected documents with a handful of Senators – how do we know what the White House is not providing? In my view, the question of retroactive immunity cannot even be considered until Congress is fully informed about what happened and under what authority.

Now how's that for sound argument! She's not off of this bipartisan fetish where Democrats are supposed to pre-surrender to Republicans by lifting the bar on passing legislation to be a veto-proof majority.

Anyways, the original diarist had a great response to Harman which should be read in its entirety. Notice how he manages to respond in a reasoned, thoughtful way to Harman's emotional (and nonsensical) lashing out. I love the answer he gives to Harman's question "Got a better idea?" as to what she should be doing intead of surrendering to Republicans.You ask me if I have a better idea about how to proceed.

I want you to tell us what you know about whether the Government conducted illegal warrantless surveillance under the Program from 10/2001- 3/2004.

Then I want you to tell us that it was unconstitutional, anti-American, and wrong.

Then I would like you and the rest of Congress to stand up in public and say that illegal Warrantless Surveillance of Americans is wrong.

I want to see full investigations of the illegality of the Warrantless Surveillance program and those who authorized it, and a pledge that it will never happen again.

I want a moratorium on extra-FISA wiretapping and FISA-related legislation until the illegality of the program is disclosed and remedied, in full.

Jane Harman has focused even more of the spotlight on her Constitution destroying actions. Her rationales behind her actions are even worse. She did a public service by being frank about it though.

That way she makes it clearer than ever that she needs to be replaced by another Democrat in this district.