Did Bob Gammage Vote Against Wiretapping Warrants?

Bell SMEAR MACHINE in action AGAIN (2.67 / 6)

I see Chris Bell has his own Karl Rove (Sean-Paul Kelly) at work trying to smear Judge Gammage.

Calling Judge Gammage a "fair weather Democrat" is Roveonian or in this case Kellioian at its worst.

Asking why Chris says his father was a "decorated veteran" and then Chris wont be a man and explain why he chose to AVOID military service is a legitimate question.

Hey Chris, you want to lead the Texas National Guard where our brave soldiers are being sent to war? Then tell us WHY you decided to NOT SERVE.

Even Cheney doesnt mention his fathers military service and Rush got a medical deferment because he has an anal cyst which causes uncontrolled defication.

If Chris has uncontrolled defication then that would be a legitimate excuse for not joining the military.

MtClint

---

by: MtClint @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 14:12:02 PM UTC

It really is a month til the Primary, huh? (2.33 / 3)

It seems that a month from the primary and the gloves are off. I am not surprised.

As a rule, this is the reason Democrats don't like primaries. We don't discuss and debate, we attack or defend ourselves through attacks.

I haven't made up my mind who I am voting for in the primary, and if needless, bloody attacks happen, I will vote down ballot and not for Gov.

Give me a reason to support Bell or Gammage and I am there. But I want policy, not veteran of or resume information from 10 years ago. What are you going to do in office and how are you going to do it.

Read Just Another Blog

---

by: Matt @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 15:05:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What in the hell is Kellioian (2.00 / 2)

I don't think you can that many vowels consecutively in a word.

thejeffersonian.blogspot.com

---

by: Cincinnatus @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 16:01:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

its french (2.00 / 1)

did you write that book about vietnam...........it was excellent.

---

by: MtClint @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 16:19:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Clint (3.00 / 1)

I didn't.  The only thing I know about Vietnam is that Dems have been portrayed as foreign policy wussies since then and have lost a shitload of elections because of it.

thejeffersonian.blogspot.com

---

by: Cincinnatus @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 20:06:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the proper (1.80 / 5)

way to spell it is Kelleyesque. See you are the one tosses out the smears. I asked legitimate policy questions and you start callign people names. What's up with that? And who brought up Vietnam?

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 16:51:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

whats callign? (1.00 / 5)

did you mean "calling"?

---

by: MtClint @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:00:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Smear? Really? (3.00 / 3)

Since when is it a "smear" to ask someone to defend/explain their record?  Yeah, I know these votes were a long time ago, but they're the most recent legislative experience he offers.  If his view have changed, that's all well and good, but he needs to explain that.

If poitning out differences between candidates' records is off limits, then please explain to me what exactly isn't?

---

by: george p @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:39:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a smear when the information (2.50 / 4)

is intentionally left out in order to distract or confuse.

Why did Jason Stanford not bring Roll Call vote 737 to your attention?

Because it makes his whole smear campaign pointless,

---

by: Texas_Kat @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 20:03:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Veterans (3.00 / 1)

Military service is not required to run for or hold office. There are several people in office who were in the military and absolutely suck. George W. Bush comes to mind...
Instead of forcing our kids to make the choice of joining the military to get money for college, take out big loans for school or not go at all, we need a governor who supports public education. A kid shouldn't have to risk his/her life or injury just to go to college.

---

by: sandra1113 @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 21:28:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FISA Warrants and government intrustion (2.50 / 4)

are policy. They are not attacks. I made it clear that any one can post on the site and explain their position. My site is dedicated to national defense and international affairs issues and this is one that should be addressed by a potential candidate for governor of the second largest state in America. This is a policy issue.

And if you want to compare me to Rove, hey that's fine. Rove wins elections. And I want to see Democrats win elections, not roll over and loose them like they have been for the past ten years in Texas. Just answer the questions: did Gammage vote against the FISA bill in conference and why?

And if he has changed his mind, why?

Do you want the Texas Rangers or the DPS to be able to invade your homes, check your emails and listen to your phone calls without a warrant? It is high past time Democrats started discussing these issues seriosuly instead of campaign platitudes. 

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 16:44:11 PM UTC

Bell is free to do so as well (2.20 / 5)

"Gammage is free to sign up for a login like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy at Kos and explain why he voted the way he did to us. We encourage him to do so. We encourage open debate."

Bell is free to sign up on BOR and explain why he voted the way he did to us as well. 

Very odd that after some of us questioned Bell's voting record in Congress two years ago, the Bell Boys question Gammage's voting record in Congress thirty years ago. Most of us are more interested in the record from two years ago. It's more current. And more relevant.

Compare the two candidates on current matters and current issues. Gammage offers real solutions to real issues. Bell offers a bunch of rhetoric and issues promises of commissions to study problems.  We already have a governor who governs through commissions while he's off sailing the seas in the SS Perry.  We don't need an SS Bell as well. One yacht is enough.  Along with its passengers. 

Which brings up the passenger list on the SS Perry.  Some of those passengers also appear on campaign finance records for Bell. I think that is far more reflective of the candidate and where his "loyalties" lie than voting records and supposed voting patterns of Gammage from thiry years ago. And as always, totally ignored by the Bell Boys.

Gloves are off?  I would love to take mine off finally. And just might. But for the moment, I'm sticking to the campaigns, the candidates, and the issues and how the candidates answer those issues.  The issues of today. Not the issues of thirty years ago.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 17:30:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing is more relevant than (2.33 / 3)

the domestic spying issue. This isn't just an issue here in Texas. It's an issue in Vermont. This should be an issue everywhere. You're interested in questioning Chris Bell's record, then question his record. Post a diary at The Agonist. Post a diary here at BOR. But don't go around whining that this is dirty politics. There is nothing more relevant than this. Nothing. AT&T is headquartered in San Antonio. They were key enablers of the Bush administration's domestic spying. That's an issue for a future governor of Texas to deal with. How will he deal with the EFF lawsuit?

Another issue that is relevant now that was relevant then is abortion. Alito is probably going to throw abortion back to the states. How's Gammage on that? And how was he back then? These are substantive issues here. I haven't drudged Gammage by accusing him of  having affairs, cheating on his wife or dodging the draft. I asked a simple question on REAL ISSUES. And you are freaking out like some one is attacking your candidate and playing dirty politics? Please.

That's garbage. This is politics. These are the real issues. These matter every day for people. They matter in Texas. They matter for everyone.

And yes, Chris Bell is welcome to sign up on my site and answer the questions you've put to him. I welcome open debate of substantive issues. It seems you don't. You call it dirty politics. I call it open, substantive debate.

Let's have that debate, and not be like Republicans who trash people instead of debating real issues.

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 17:53:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abortion (3.00 / 2)

Bob's been extraordinarily clear on that. He's prochoice and has been since before Roe v. Wade.

He voted against federal funding which put the Bell campaign into full tilt bitch. Of course, they didn't know (or bother to share with anyone) that Bob had already admitted that he made a mistake on that vote. His core belief is in a woman's right to choose. Anything else is a distortion or an outright lie.

To be honest, given Bell's position on abortion it's a little suprising he's the one casting the first stone.

There's a progressive running in this race and it's NOT Chris Bell. Bob wants to bump the minimum wage by almost 20%. Chris wants to raise it by 3%. Way to be gutsy there, Chris.

---

by: The Trey @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:10:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

please explain... (2.00 / 2)

...what you mean when you question "Bell's position on abortion."  He's got a 100% NARAL rating and is the only one out there talking about ending abstincnce-only sex ed.

Also, Gammage's votes were not about federal funding in general.  They were about allowing exceptions to the  funding ban for cases of rape or incest.  Voting (repeatedly) to deny abortion services to a poor woman who's been the victim of rape or incest is not "progressive."

---

by: george p @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:46:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abortion (3.00 / 1)

Ask him how he feels about parental notification, specifically if the boy's family should be notified. I'd love to hear if his answer has changed since May of last year.

---

by: The Trey @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:52:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay let' s debate (2.00 / 4)

The "Congresssional Record page" you received from Jason Stanford as a PDF file is actually a 'brief' in the Congressional Record summarizing votes from the House/Senate Conference Committee.  It includes ONLY the vote on the Conference Committee report. This ongoing disinformation campaign is getting very tiresome.

I am on the way to pick up paper copies of several documents that show just how twisted Stanford's words are.  I'll scan them and put the up on the web for you to see for youself.

While I'm working on that, here's a bit of information that points out many of the differences between the House Bill and the Senate Bill as it went INTO the conference committee (along with some context). It's from the Congressional Research Service and it's very detailed, so only those seriously interested in this issue probably need to read it.  Those that prefer to keep repeating 'the smear of the day' from Chris Bell's campaign shouldn't bother.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/crs_analysis.pdf

After this, anybody who accepts Stanford's missives at face value should be counted among the most gullible of amateurs.

Word to the wise:  Anytime you see the name "Bob Eckhardt" associated with a vote, assume the vote was pro-civil liberties and pro-privacy.  Please note that Bob Eckhardt voted the same way Gammage did.

In case you don't know who Rep. Bob Eckhardt was, he was the iconic liberal in Texas at the time and cofounder of the Texas Observer.  Here's a bit about Eckhardt from his obit.  Eckhardt and Gammage were friends.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1114-05.htm

---

by: Texas_Kat @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 19:58:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another good word (2.00 / 2)

Twisted.  I like that.  Sums up Bell, his campaign, his campaign manager and his supporters who apparerntly firmly believe that if you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it.

A campaign built on lies says what about the campaign and the candidate?

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 20:31:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris Bell.....uncontrolled defication?...is a legitimate question. (1.67 / 3)

Chris Bell has created his bio/page with the words "decorated veteran" close to his name, thats a FACT.

Other candidates do NOT mention relatives military service. It is obvious Chris is hoping folks will see his name and the words "decorated veteran" and assume Chris served in the military.

A typical Rove/Kelly trick?

OK Chris, tell us WHY you chose NOT TO SERVE but are willing to put "decorated veteran" next to your name.

If the reason is the same as Rush Limbaugh's, that you have/had uncontrolled defication then admit it and the issue will be resolved. I guarantee not one person would ever say anything negative about you if you suffered (like Rush Limbaugh) from uncontrolled defication.

MtClint
ps.....did kelly REALLY say he likes Karl Rove, ewwwwwww.

---

by: MtClint @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 17:55:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And for the record, I am in no way affiliated (2.33 / 3)

with the campaign. I do not work for the campaign. And I have recieved no money from the campaign.

And no, I didn't say I like Karl Rove, I said I like winning, which Rove and Republicans do on a regular basis. What, you don't like winning? Is your inner child afraid of success? 

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:08:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and the Swift Boat Veterans wernt affiliated with the RNC (1.50 / 4)

nice try Karl Kelly....me thinkst the gentleman doest protest a bit to much.

MtClint

(my apologies to the bard)

---

by: MtClint @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:16:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uncontrolled Defication? What in the hell? (2.00 / 2)

See, this is the problem with us Democrats.  We think the electorate's waaaay too stupid because they don't vote the way we want them to- especially here in Texas where they do it often and overwhelmingly.

It can't be because the candidates put up either don't jive with their values or don't speak to them as fervently or as often as they should.  Nor can it be the fact that most Democrats and candidates don't know what a real, live campaign looks like.

I think the average voter is smart enough to see the name Chris Bell and then the words 'decorated veteran' two lines below and not think Chris Bell=decorated veteran.  Especially when the words preceding 'decorated veteran' are 'the son of a'.  So he's proud of his father, so am I.  And if his eyesight wasn't atrocious and if I were running for office, I'd probably put his military service on my bio too.

Get. Over. It.

thejeffersonian.blogspot.com

---

by: Cincinnatus @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 20:18:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The gloves aren't already off? (2.00 / 2)

You heard it hear first -- baby snooks has been sticking to the issues in the past few months. Could of fooled me.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:24:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just the issues (2.50 / 4)

I haven't flinged any dirt.  And there's lots to fling.  Even the supposed "attacks" on Alison Bell were merely pointing out how she actively participates in this underhanded and dirty campaign agenda of her husband's.

All I've said with regard to the personal issues involved is that  someone should hire a private investigator. 

Someone on the "old" BOR pointed out that Bob Gammage is helping the "down ballot" candidates while Chris Bell is not.  Simple observation. 

Chris Bell doesn't care about anyone or anything but himself. I doubt if he even cares if he wins in November. He only cares about winning the primary so he can keep his foot in the political ring. If he loses this primary, I would say he's pretty much finished politically. I would also say good riddance.

He lives in a glass house.  All these stones he's now throwing at Gammage and threw at so many others before Gammage, almost always through a "third party,"
should be thrown back finally.

His campaign finance records alone show where his "loyalties" lie and his "loyatlies" obviously lie where the money is.  As indicated by his voting record in Congress.  Republican money = votes for the Republican agenda.

I wonder if the Dirty Dozen really looked at that record before endorsing him.  Probably not. The apparently only wanted to "even a score" with Bob Gammage.  They probably would have endorsed Bush in order to do so. 

As for Karl Rove, anyone who admires the tactics of Karl Rove is a little dysfunctional to say the least.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:48:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, great... more hyperbole... (3.00 / 1)

"Do you want the Texas Rangers or the DPS to be able to invade your homes, check your emails and listen to your phone calls without a warrant? "

Come on, FISA doesn't even cover state law enforcement. Still, why he voted against the conf report is a valid question. I would have voted against it because it's a shitty law that STILL gives the executive too much latitude.

I would like to see you just as strident in asking why Chris voted for the Bankruptcy Bill and drilling in ANWR, both of which affect a lot more people than FISA. Just ask someone who could lose their home because of medical bills.

---

by: The Trey @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 17:55:16 PM UTC

No, actually, The Trey, why don't you ask (2.33 / 3)

Chris that question? That's the key to blogging and the new media. You get to ask the questions.

And no, FISA doesn't cover state law enformcement. But AT&T is headquartered in  Texas and how will a future government treat a ruling infavorable to AT&T? Will he slap them on the wrists, interfere with the courts, or let the courts do their job.

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:05:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, I did... (0.00 / 0)

in May of last year. The same time he told a friend of mine that he didn't think parental notification should extend to a boy. Yeah, that went over REALLY well her.

I would assume that a ruling against AT&T would require damages to be paid to those affected and a rather hefty fine. Of course, I don't think it'll happen... I don't think the EFF has a case against AT&T.

---

by: The Trey @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:59:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks TTrey for lucidity (3.00 / 1)

The Bell vote for predatory debt collection on top of predatory lending will ACTUALLY impact far more people than the mischaracterization of a thirty year old vote...

And you will find no answer to that question from anyone supporting Bell.

---

by: energyecon @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:11:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

40/40 project (3.00 / 1)

Check back next week...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:25:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ITS A FAKE DOCUMENT, hahahaha (1.25 / 4)

The document is FAKE, it looks like
Karl Kelly is trying to pull a fast one!
http://agonist.org/annex/gammageonwiretaps.pdf

look on the bottom right of page2, that
looks like a MICROSOFT trademark, the document says its from 1978, Bill Gates was 10, his parents wouldnt allow him to start a business(Microsoft) till he was 18.

Hey Karl Kelly, f your going to imitate your hero, Karl Rove, then you need to try harder.

MtClint

---

by: MtClint @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:12:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can I have some of (2.00 / 2)

what you are smoking? Cause it's gotta be good.

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:27:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I gotta ask the question MtClint: (1.00 / 1)

were you wearing pajams when you discovered the fake document conspiracy?

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:49:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Has Sean-Paul Stopped Uncontrollably Flogging His Dummy? (1.67 / 3)

I would ask "have you stopped beating your wife?" but that would presume he has one... though both questions are of the same construction and a clear indication that this is NOT an attempt to raise an issue or the level of discourse.  So my question is offered in the same spirit as the parent post.

This is what is termed a "complex question," one that subsumes one or more imbedded assumptions.

If this were truly an issues discussion, then it would be posed without all the breathless editorializing - perhaps there were some 'No' votes because FISA gave too much latitude to the executive - I have no idea if that was the case, and given the nature of the question I wonder about the authenticity of the source.

---

by: energyecon @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:29:10 PM UTC

Authenticity of the source? (3.00 / 2)

You're suggesting that Sean-Paul broke into the National Archives and doctored the Congressional Record from 1978?

Wow, now that's dedication.

---

by: george p @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:55:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is interesting to note (3.00 / 2)

that you all are attacking me instead of answering the questions.As I said in my original post:

Have those questions been answered? No. They have not. Only accusations and attacks on the messenger/questioner.

That's not substantive debate.

This is the defining issue of the day, the year, the decade. I just want to know why he thought FISA was such a bad idea back then? And does he still stand by his vote?

Just answer the question. That's all and the whole issue goes away.

The price of apathy towards government is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

---

by: Sean-Paul Kelley @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:39:34 PM UTC

Yeah, it is funny (2.00 / 2)

how folks will attack anyone that doesn't agree with them.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: Damon McCullar @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 18:52:53 PM UTC

Ironic - calling for substantive debate! (2.33 / 3)

Sorry you feel personally defensive when the defect of your method WHICH REMAINS UNADRESSED is raised.

To wit, that you felt compelled to phrase it as a complex question rather than an honest exploration of the issue.  By virture of repeatedly and excessively characterizing the vote while POSING as an objective inquiry it gives the lie to your call for substantive debate.

---

by: energyecon @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 19:11:29 PM UTC

Hilarious (2.00 / 4)

Any questioning of Bob Gammage or his voting record is met with furor and is labeled "dirty tricks" by his primary opponent. What happens if it turns out that people want these answers for themselves? What happens if the root of all criticism does not come from the Bell campaign?
Let the candidates' voting records speak for themselves.

---

by: sandra1113 @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 21:16:40 PM UTC

Serious mischaracterization met by passion for truth (0.00 / 0)

Once again, the issue has been framed as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question and tied to a vote without the real context.  Go back and look at Texas_Kat posts if you want the record to speak for itself.

What this Gammage supporter is calling bullsh!t on is the breathless verbiage that accompanies - PLEASE go look for the answer for yourself - its just that the repition of "Fair, Balanced" coming from the Bell camp is nauseatingly familiar... when the story is incomplete and anything but fair or balanced. 

Philip started a thread in a more recent post that DOES address the issue in a balanced manner, I suggest you start your investigations their if you really want to find out for yourself.

---

by: energyecon @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 21:30:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No one is jumping... (3.00 / 1)

... on whether or not it's a valid question, it is. It was the nasty, hyperbolic way in which it was posed and the fact that those doing the questioning seem to have much less interest in questions about Bell.

I don't think either candidate is perfect and I'll go further by saying that there is now need for some kind of ersatz purity oath. HOWEVER, I do have a massive problem with the way this handled in the original post.

The question WAS asked in such a way as to a create an impression that Gammage is against restrictions on wiretapping which is far from the truth.

---

by: The Trey @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 21:43:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wah wah wah (1.50 / 2)

Don't be so damn sensitive. Maybe next time anyone wants an answer from Gammage on anything, they'll ask nicely and say pretty please with sugar on top. If Gammage and his people are this thin-skinned, they'll never make it out of the primary, much less the general.

---

by: sandra1113 @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 21:53:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dishonest and a disservice (1.00 / 1)

This approach does far more damage to Chris Bell than it does to Bob Gammage.

---

by: energyecon @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 22:11:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you say so (n/t) (1.00 / 1)

---

by: sandra1113 @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 22:14:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lack of concern for truth, tactics or tone (1.00 / 1)

Its a low road, unsubstantiated approach to a Democratic primary that seems to be run by Karl Rove wannbes... that self-righteously take on the airs to proclaim who is or isn't a 'real' Democrat.

Yeah, I think identifying your candidate with this sort of behavior damages his credibility and viability in a general with two independents running in it.

---

by: energyecon @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 22:20:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Beating on Chris (0.00 / 0)

Sandra, thanks for sharing.

---

by: The Trey @ Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 22:29:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I would agree with you if Jason Stanford weren't (2.33 / 3)

personally lobbying the blog owners in Texas to "PULLEEEEEEEEEASE post his stuff"

If it were a legitimate question from a legitimate voter it deserves an explanation. 

Though this WASN'T any of those things, but postings from admitted Bell partisans with a histronic bent, it got an answer anyway.

So Sean rated the answer a "1" and called those of us making an attempt to answer the question,  "bullies".

I have an idea, let's do another poll.  How'd that last one turn out?

Oh........maybe I shouldn't have asked.

*Bob Gammage - 36 votes (85.71%)
*Chris Bell - 6 votes (14.29%)

---

by: Texas_Kat @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:45:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sickening (2.00 / 2)

These cheap shots betray the fear of the Bell camp.

They feel that they have to tear down Gammage in order for their guy to "back in" to the Primary win.

"Put the jam on the lower shelf where the little fellow can reach it." Sen. Ralph Yarborough

---

by: FWDem @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:14:13 AM UTC

Why I thought FISA was bad back then (3.00 / 1)

Along with most civil liberties types, I was, and remain uneasy by the secrecy of this special court, and felt that the normal US District Court processes were adequate. Nixon era cases of executive National Security taps never reached resolution. The Ford administration never felt a need to test the authority.

Carter authorised the first videotap on Truong Dinh Hung, a Vietnamese national working for the Agency for International Development, accused of forwarding classified economic data to the Vietnames government to protect his family who'd remained behind. While his order was upheld by both the trial court and the 4th Circuit, the affair is considered to have been the impetus to the passage of the FISA law. 

Now, given that the FISA Courts in place, there's no excuse to bypass it.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 22:09:45 PM UTC