President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 21, 2008 11:13 PM UTC

Rep Udall does the right thing on the FISA bill

  • 31 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

From Representative Udall’s statement on the FISA bill we have:

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.

That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.

And this is a very brave thing for Udall to do as he is running for Senate.

Of course, it is Representative Tom Udall that did the right thing even though it may hurt him in his Senate race.

And a note to Mark Udall – the most important thing you do in Washington is how you vote on key issues. The key component of your race is you will vote differently than Bob Schaffer.

Well in this case Milquetoast Mark voted identically to how Bob Schaffer would have voted. If Udall will sell out the constitution and the rule of law to get elected, is there anything (other than winning) the he actually considers sacrosanct?

Is there a single example of a vote where Milquetoast put doing the right thing ahead of getting elected? If so, I’d sure like to know about it.

Update: Is there a single example of a vote in the last 2 years where Milquetoast put doing the right thing ahead of getting elected? If so, I’d sure like to know about it.

Just one example, that’s all I’m asking for.

Update 2:

Talk about a difficult election, Gary Trauner is running in Wyoming which is a much harder race than Colorado (and he has a credible chance). Here’s the statement of a candidate I would be proud to help elect:

Wow!  Is that what it’s come to?  Our federal government says you must do something, even if it is against the law, and we “need” to do it?  Well, I don’t care whether it’s the Republican Leadership in Washington DC or the Democrats in the House, I’ll proudly tell them – and you – where I stand on warrantless wiretapping, the rule of law and protecting our national security:

  • I want to ensure that my children, and all of our children, are safe from terrorist attacks by beefing up our intelligence capabilities, protecting vulnerable targets, proactively taking out terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in their hideouts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and around the world, and working to remove safe havens for terrorists by winning the battle of ideas, not simply the battle for Tikrit.
  • I believe in the Constitution and rule of law, the two things that define our great American experiment. We must not gut our freedoms in order to save our freedoms.  If we do that, those who use terror as a tactic will achieve their goal – after all, what would we be fighting to protect?.
  • We can protect our nation without sacrificing everything our founding fathers and millions of veterans fought for; the FISA law, already updated in 2001 after 9/11 and recently patched to fix some omissions due to changing technology, works.
  • I would rather bring Osama Bin Laden to justice than help large corporations avoid justice.
  • If we value our Constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, we better think twice about ignoring other Constitutional rights, such as the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause.  Because once we cherry pick the Constitution, someone will eventually come after the rights we hold most dear.
Tweet
Share

Comments

31 thoughts on “Rep Udall does the right thing on the FISA bill”

  1. As did John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter, and as will Ken Salazar, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

    In fact, only one member of the Colorado delegation voted or will vote against it.

    Why the hate brigade on Mark Udall?

    As to your question, notwithstanding the namecalling which generally prompts me not to respond, here are several that I found just trolling through his web site for a couple of minutes:

    * Voted against the USA PATRIOT Act.

    * Voted against the war

    * Voted against the surge

    * Introduced legislation to prevent an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization

    The list goes on. For a supposed insider I find your lack of knowledge about your own candidate appalling. Especially since all this information has been on his web site since last year sometime.

    1. First off why am I hammering Udall? Because he’s my rep – I live in CD-2. I’m not thrilled with Perlmutter or Salazar’s votes (and what do they have to worry about) but they don’t represent me. Udall got my vote to put him in the house and wants my vote to go to the Senate.

      Second, Mark Udall has basically run away from anything contentious for the last 2 years. I think he has had one public meeting for constituents in the last 2 years. I know the anti-war nut-cases are a pain to put up with but it’s part of the job. And every vote seems based on what will get him elected Senator.

      With all that said, I will grant you that he did vote bravely against the war when it first came up. And against the patriot act. So yes, he has stood up in the past to do the right thing even when it would cost him votes.

      I want that Mark Udall back.

    2. with what I agree is a solid voting record.

      I am very disappointed in Mark.

      To me the executive branch exceeding its authority is not a partisan isue and not something that happened in the “past.”  Checks and balances and congressional oversight of the executive are a constant duty.  

      Letting the telecoms off the hook (and by extension the executive branch) sends a signal that there are no consequences to violating the law.  what if we said speeding is against the law, but there are no consequences–how fast would people drive?

      By the same token, and much more seriously since it stikes at the heart of the Republic, equality under the law and divided government, there must be consequences to the executive violating the law.

      I am disappointed in Mark, because I have come to expect better from him.

      1. And his abstension on the 7th was not counted against him. Taking a quick glance at those bills most of them were no-brainers and none of them were ones that risked losing a single vote when he ran for Senator.

        And in the case of http://www.hrc.org the entire rating is based on a single vote – against hate crimes.

        I ask again, show me something where his vote would hurt him politically. Ken Salazar , who I disagree with at times, has done numerous things where he has taken a lot of heat. The Gang of 14 effort was, I think, very important for the future operations of the Senate – and he had lots of people upset at him for doing that.

        I haven’t seen Mark Udall do that at all in the last 2 years. In fact, I haven’t seen Mark Udall period in the last 2 years. He’s as scarce as Bob Schaffer.

        1. Abstentions are “present” votes. He just missed the vote for a motion to recommit with instructions.

          http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200…

          You think voting against the “Protect America Act” was a no-brainer?

          I’m done with you. You opine with no information to back up your opinions. Your whole “scarce as Bob” routine is based on you not paying attention, not on actual fact. I go to every Udall event I hear about because unlike some lefty weirdos like you I’m actually excited to have Mark Udall replace Wayne Allard in the U.S. Senate. I’ve been to probably 15 public events in the past 2 months. I was just at one in Boulder 3 weeks ago at Manhattan Middle School. Just as your comments about Mark not running any ads was bullshit because you don’t pay attention, you are right now spewing bullshit. And I’m calling you on it.

          1. I agree with you on a certain level, but cut Dave a little slack.  This is a blog, not a grad level PoliSci seminar.  Dave has his opinions and usually they’re reasonably informed…but he’s no expert and everyone knows that. He’s no “lefty weirdo” despite his present harping on Udall.  

            Dave pays plenty of attention, he’s just a little off sometimes, as are all the rest of us…

            1. I am just sick and tired of people who should be rallying around the guy who will be the best Senator this state has seen since Gary Hart (or ever) bagging on him when he doesn’t toe their perceived ideological line.

              Suck it up, people. This is Mark Udall we’re talking about. Get him elected first, then bag on him if you don’t like what he is doing.

              1. I will admit that my distaste for Udall does color my view of him. For the past 2 years I have become less and less impressed with him.

                What started my distaste was when he stopped having meet & greets in his district because of the anti-war nut-cases. I think it is incumbent upon a legislator to have those meetings regularly – regardless of who shows up.

                As to his being out in public now, I’m sorry but I’ve yet to hear of his going to an event where he listens to others. It might have happened and I missed it but all I have seen is events where he runs in, speaks, and runs out.

                So I’ve been a good little Dem, hold my voice, support him where I can, and go vote for him in November. I understand you have to run from the middle to win in Colorado. And I understand just staying under the radar when your opponent is self destructing.

                But this FISA vote – that’s a bridge too far. The whole thing about if there’s a letter from the White House – give me a break. You want to know if there’s a letter – ask the White House before passing the bill. This is a lame attempt at a fig leaf to cover up what they are doing. If you’re going to bend over for George Bush, if you’re going to hose the constitution and the rule of law, then at least man up about it and do so honestly.

                As to Udall being the best Senator from Colorado since Gary Hart – no way. Udall will be a nonentity. He’s been one as a Representative. And that’s ok, most of the Senators are non-entities. There’s 100 of them so most are not going to shine. But I figured he’d be a positive influence as a back-bencher. With his vote on FISA I’m not even sure of that anymore.

                We need to strive to make our party, and out candidates, better every day. Pretending that this vote doesn’t mean much harms our party. Since Udall voted this way, I’m going to point out that he’s a mediocre candidate. Better than Schaffer but that’s it.

                I do hope Udal wins in November – by 1 vote.

              2. Dabee47 – thank you but I think it’s fair for ThillyWabbit to ping me when I’m wrong. And you are right – I am emotional about this.

                ThillyWabbit – I appreciate what you are saying but I think there is a point where we need to speak up even during an election. Otherwise it becomes acceptable for our candidates to do and say anything to get elected.

                1. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve read all 100+ pages of it, as well as studied thoughtful analysis of it by Constitutional scholars, as well as asked Mark and Ed’s legislative staff about it.

                  It’s neither as bad as the ACLU and Glenn Greenwald would have you believe, nor is it as good as Bush and his apologists would have you believe.

                  The ACLU would oppose any bill that has to do with wiretapping (other than a flat-out ban) because they don’t like wiretapping of any kind. And the Republicans don’t want to admit that they ceded any ground (which they did), and they know that by saying they got just what they want it will piss off people like you.

                  It’s not a great bill, but it’s no constitutional travesty either. Both Udall and Perlmutter’s statements basically said they held their noses and voted for it. It’s a compromise. Sometimes that’s what you have to do in Congress.

                  1. How about he does a meet & greet in CD-2 to discuss his vote on the bill. And he takes questions and answers them.

                    Or if he’s still afraid to do the public meet & greet, how about he meets me (at a secret undisclosed location) and we discuss it – and I’ll be happy to blog the result, or even have it transcribed and posted verbatum.

                    And my first question will be this.

                    As the bill made much of if the White House wrote a letter to the telcos, why didn’t they just ask the White House if such a letter exists and then work from that. It’s not like the letter is going to be kept secret once the bill passes.

                    1. Here’s how I would answer it.

                      Have you ever heard of national security letters?

                      They are subpoenas issued by the government that come with a built-in gag order. You can’t reveal the letter’s existence (not even to your lawyer) or you go to jail. You can’t challenge it in court, either.

                      That is why the FISA amendments say that the administration has to certify that the letters were sent. The telcos can’t produce them or they go to jail. They can’t even acknowledge that they got one or they go to jail.

                      This issue is far from black and white and few people want to look into it that deeply because they really want somebody to be punished. I understand that sentiment, but there are no easy answers here.

                    2. Whatever mechanism is proposed, why did they not ask the White House to do that before voting? I’ve yet to hear a good reason to make a central part of the bill “if the White House can produce something that must already exist.”

                      ?????

                    3. At an Idearaiser, one of the many public events I’ve been to that he supposedly never has where he did have a 2-way dialog and didn’t just breeze in, make a speech, and breeze out.

                      Which is why he wasn’t happy about the immunity provision. Listen, when I called the district office there was no shortage of unhappiness about it. It was definitely a bitter pill to swallow in order for Congress to actually take control of the process again.

                      But on the plus side–no certification, no immunity. And the Bush administration is not off the hook for its activities. There’s no immunity for them (though I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a spate of midnight January 19th pardons).

                    4. Udall said he wanted to know if the letter existed before voting. But voted anyways not knowing if it exists? Why???

                      Also, which idea raiser was Udall himself at? What I’ve heard on the grapevine is he doesn’t attend them. I have emailed Taylor West to ask when Udall will next have an event where he takes questions and I’ll go to that if it’s in the Denver Metro area to see this in action – I could be wrong.

                    5. Now the FISA court will be able to examine the letters, look at what the telcos did, and if they did more than they were asked for (which the EFF and ACLU allege) there’s no immunity for that. If they did exactly what they were asked to do and told was perfectly legal, they get immunity.

                      That’s a better situation than blanket immunity. Not perfect, but better.

  2. Holding our elected leaders–and would be elected leaders–accountable for their votes is a fundamental necessity in our system of government.  Such is not a hate brigade it is democracy in action.

    I was very troubled by Congressman Udall’s vote.  I was very troubled by Congressman Salazar’s vote.  I was appreciative of Congresswoman DeGette’s vote (to uphold the 4th Amendment).  I passed those messages along to all three.    

  3. with your presumptive candidate.  According to the Washington Post, Obama will vote for the FISA bill.  http://blog.washingtonpost.com…

    This of course goes along with rumors of a change on his Iraq policy: http://blog.washingtonpost.com…

    The money quote from Iraq’s foreign minister: He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.

    So Mark Udall seems to be getting with the program set by Senator Obama.

  4. a thoughtful vote of conscience then I would be a bit more mellow about it.  The nagging impression I get though is that these votes by Mark Udall are political calculations to help get him elected.  Sometimes people can win elections but hurt their party.  George Bush was very good at winning elections but he has inflicted long term damage on the Republican Party.  Is Mark Udall another Bush with insincere votes and a corporate climbing mentality?  Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. How can I ever recover from such a nasty accusation?  And how does some one with such a better understanding not bother to question whether principle is more important than winning?

        I thought it was a intriguing twist to ask Democrats if they aren’t making the same mistake as the Republicans who backed Bush.  I guess questioning mindless support for a candidate because they can “win” regardless of how they vote is taboo to an open minded person such as yourself.

  5. There are those of us who are fine with this bill.  There are some of you who aren’t.  That’s fine.  But the reality is that come Nov. both you and I will be voting for Mark Udall.

    Pelosi, Hoyer, and the rest of the gang calculated this perfectly.  Sure, it will piss some people off…but the vast majority is OK with this bill and there’s almost no political downside to passing it as Hoyer negotiated.  You might be mad…you’ll hold back you contribution to Udall…but he and every other dem who voted for this bill will be fine…and they know it.  Again, some of us think this is a pretty good bill.

    The only question I have is, how will you feel when Superman Obama votes for this bill next week???

    1. I make contributions once a month to various candidates. It was today for this month. I contributed to Betsy Markey, Joe Whitcomb, Hal Bidlack, Hank Eng, and …

      The final contribution was going to go to Obama. It went to MoveOn instead because of Obama’s upcoming vote.

    2. But campaigning for? Not any more. I dropping out of the canvasing for him. If I do anything it will be working for local candidates for the statehouse or RTD.

  6. The way I understand the scenario played out, the Dem’s were able to get substantial extensions of unemployment benefits with the passage of this bill.  This package of benefits would have been vetoed by Dubya under any other scenario.  The Dems got what they wanted, the White House got a watered down version of their wishes and it will be get signed.  I know a few R’s that are as pissed about this vote as Dave is because they view unemployment benefits as just more give-aways for those sorry Americans that can’t keep a job in these prosperous times.

    Rail all you want about Mark — he’s got my vote.  I’ll refuse to let the “pretty damn good” be the enemy of the “perfect”. Schaffer would just be another 6+ year extension of Senator Allard and the W Club. Anyone who has spent much time in DC during this administration understands how hard it is to get any meaningful change in direction for the country with such a thin majority in the Senate and a Prez who has finally found his veto pen.  Neither side likes to be subjected to this much compromise, trust me.  At this point incremental change is the best we can hope for until there is either a larger majority in the Senate or someone different in the Oval Office.

      1. Still, I know the Repubs were holding their nose as well on that one.  They’ve still not adjusted to the “you’re not in the majority anymore” memo.

  7. MoveOn is pushing Obama on this issue. It doesn’t mean we no longer support Obam (or Udall). It doesn’t mean we quit and go home (Paul!!!). It means we fight back for the soul of our party.

    And it means we ask Udall about this (and other issues) when he pops out of the witness protection program to actually attend an event.

    If you go to Udall’s campaign site you can see that he has a gigantic 2 events scheduled between now and election day. Gee, how can anyone say he’s avoiding people…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

75 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!