Yesterday, Think Progress noted that one of the Republican's pundit mouthpieces was floating the idea that they were going to attempt to get the Cheney/Rockefeller FISA bill past the House by attaching to a media shield bill that has strong bipartisan support. That effort would mean some procedural hurdles for the minority that hopefully leadership would be willing to block. This sounds like a trial balloon, but nonetheless signals the ongoing obsession the Right has with passing the Protect AT&T Act.

Meanwhile, ranking SSCI member Kit Bond told The Hill that the White House is "willing to compromise" on amnesty.

Bond said: "I think we’ve come up with some things that would involve the court, but not get to a position where it would endanger the program or the carriers."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to comment.

Bond said the language, drafted with White House consent, represented a "new provision we’ve come up with" on immunity. He would not give details other than to say that the FISA court would have a role. It is unclear whether the new approach will gain approval from Democratic leaders and negotiators....

Recently, talks have gone on separate tracks. Bond has taken his case directly to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who also has held separate talks with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). Bond said talks with a wider range of lawmakers and staff were unfocused.

Bond and Hoyer have narrowed their talks down to two areas: retroactive immunity and procedures on targeting people outside the United States in eavesdropping and minimizing communications captured incidentally during surveillance operations.

Hoyer has recently suggested revisions, including more court involvement in minimization and targeting procedures.

"There were something like 50 people, and they came up with 25 different ideas, and [Hoyer] sent the list over to me and said, ‘Thank you very much for your ideas, but you and I have talked about the two main ones,’ " Bond said of a recent meeting with all House and Senate negotiators.

Bond’s efforts might not go over well with Rockefeller, who offered his own proposal last week.

"I’m neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but I’m hopeful," Rockefeller said about reaching an agreement.

Bond described Rockefeller’s plan as "bizarre" and said it "totally undid what we passed in the Senate."

The news that Rockefeller is totally undoing what passed in the Seante is the most encouraging news from him in months, but Bond's obnoxious dismissal of it just reiterates the pointlessness of trying to deal with Republicans. At the same time, it's not encouraging that Hoyer apparently has been working more with Bond than with Rockefeller.

One potential, and not completely disastrous, compromise they could be floating would be along the lines of the Specter-Whitehouse substitution bill, which would would allow plaintiffs to substitute the government as the defendant in the pending cases, thus dismissing the teleco defendants. What it's important it that it would ensure that plaintiffs retain full discovery rights – i.e., they can serve discovery requests on the dismissed teleco companies. It's entirely possible, as Kevin Drum and bmaz have argued that the telcos signed indemnification agreements with the government when the warrantless surveillance program began. Any such agreement would be classified, so we don't know they exist, but it seems pretty likely.

Indemnification would be acceptable, provided the cases go forward and the plaintiffs have discovery rights vis-a-vis the telcos. These cases have never been about the potential damage awards against the telcos, despite the Right's efforts to paint this as a greedy trial lawyer issue. What it has always been about is information: about the public's right to know what our government has been doing and why. Given the administration's penchant for secrecy, it doesn't seem likely that this is the kind of compromise that they'd be willing to agree to.

Anything less is unacceptable.

First it was endangered Republican Senator Gordon Smith and now it's entire House Republican caucus trying to coopt the message of change.

It looks like Republicans will counter the Democratic push for change from the years of the Bush administration with their own pledge to deliver, drum roll please, "the change you deserve." The first element of the party agenda developed over the past few months by the leadership and select party members will focus on family issues.

"Through our "Change You Deserve" message and through our "American Families Agenda," House Republicans will continue our efforts to speak directly to an American public looking for leaders who will offer real solutions for the challenges they confront every day," said the memo prepared for lawmakers.

The party agenda is part of an effort to show that Republicans have ideas beyond simply blocking Democratic initiatives and supporting Mr. Bush on his multiple veto threats, some of which are looming over bills that could be before lawmakers this week.

Maybe they're worried that little Mother's Day stunt backfired. After all, it's not very smart to vote against Mom.

Let's look at their ideas to provide solutions for the challenges Americans face every day. They've killed SCHIP, which would have extended health insurance to children in moderate income families. They're getting help from the Blue Dog Democrats to block a vote on the GI Bill of Rights. Hmmm, that's not very friendly to American families of veterans. Of course, they also want to keep our military mired in a hopeless civil war in Iraq for "as long as it takes." That's not very friendly to the families of service members.

They've blocked consideration of a bill intended to help Americans caught in the mortgage crisis. That seems downright hostile to hurting families. They want to extend amnesty to law-breaking telcos, which is very friendly to the families of AT&T and Verizon executives, but that's a pretty small group that I expect the Republicans had wrapped up already.

Somehow I don't think the Republicans' idea of change is really what America has in mind.

The nation's bad mood worsens:

Public disgruntlement neared a record high and President Bush slipped to his career low in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Eighty-two percent of Americans now say the country's seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the last year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And 31 percent approve of Bush's job performance overall, while 66 percent disapprove.

The country's mood -- and the president's ratings -- are suffering from the double whammy of an unpopular war and a faltering economy. Consistently for the last year, nearly two-thirds of Americans have said the war in Iraq was not worth fighting. And consumer confidence is near its lowest in weekly ABC News polls since late 1985.

Bush's approval rating has been extraordinarily stable -- before today's 31 percent it had been 32 percent or 33 percent in nine ABC/Post polls from July through last month. In presidential approval polls by Gallup since 1934, just three presidents have gone lower: Jimmy Carter, who bottomed out at 28 percent approval in July 1979; Richard Nixon, 24 percent in July and August 1974; and Harry Truman, 22 percent in February 1952.

Bush now has gone 40 months without majority approval, beating Truman's record (also during economic discontent and an unpopular war) of 38 months from 1949-52.

The "extraordinary" stability in Bush's approval rating is only matched the how extraordinarily bad he is at this job. He still, however, has 69% approval from fellow Republicans. The third of Americans who consider themselves independent, however, give him just a 24% approval in this poll.

So the question for McCain is whether he's going to play Maverick for those independents who hate Bush, or is he going to continue to work on consolidating his base, those 69% of Republicans who have left planet reality. It's a conundrum that even his surrogates haven't quite figured out. Via Think Progress, we've got dueling surrogates Romney and Blunt on whether McCain would give us Bush's third term on the economy.

On CNN’s Late Edition today, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) claimed that the argument that John McCain would, in effect, be a third Bush term "isn’t going to stick":

BLITZER: [Obama] says he welcomes a debate with John McCain on the issue of the economy, taxes, spending policy because John McCain would simply be more George W. Bush. ... Does John McCain want to continue what Obama called the failed policies of the Bush administration?

ROMNEY: Well I think you’re going to hear that time and again, Wolf, throughout the campaign season. And I just don’t think it’s going to stick.

But earlier on the same program, a leading McCain surrogate — Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — conceded that McCain is indeed promising a third Bush term on the economy:

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing.

Following their stunning success in Nevada, Paul supporters are back at it. And it couldn't happen to a more worthy Republican state party.

The Texas congressman and former Libertarian presidential nominee has targeted Idaho as part of his quixotic challenge to John McCain. Paul loyalists seek to yank the Idaho GOP organization up from the grass roots by fielding candidates for precinct committeeman in the May 27 primary. But they refuse to identify their slate.

An unusually large number of candidates, many unfamiliar to party regulars, seek to fill the county and state central committees, especially in Ada, Twin Falls and Kootenai counties....

Idaho GOP Chairman Kirk Sullivan said Paul's tactics were a hot topic at a recent National Committee meeting.

"They are working hard to have an impact on the national convention," Sullivan said. "But they don't talk to anybody. I have never been approached by a single Ron Paul person about what the party's doing, how they get involved, how the platform will be rewritten, how the rules will be established."...

Challis McAffee, 32, has been attending Central Committee meetings, where he declines to sign in. He is a self-employed Capital High grad who is converting a travel trailer to a food service rig in the driveway of his parents' Boise home, the address he lists for his candidacy.... McAffee chuckled at the notion the Republican Party, which dominates Idaho politics, is nervous about Paul's guerrilla tactics. "They oughtta be," he said in a stage whisper. "We're taking the party back."

Paul has quite a following in Idaho, and enjoyed an enthusiastic reception there last month. If his followers are organized enough, they might be able to pull off a repeat of Nevada and possibly throw a monkey wrench into the downticket races. Both Bill Sali, Idaho's first district represenative, and Jim Risch, current lieutenant governor and the party establishment's heir apparent for Larry Craig's seat, have primaries. Risch, in fact, has seven of opponents, a few of them the run-of-the-mill Idaho Republican kooks (including the Californian who has never been to Idaho), and a few of them fairly serious and committed.

A serious revolt by Paul's people, should it trickle down the ticket, might give Risch a bit of a scare in his march to the nomination. Once he gets that nomination (and he almost certainly will) he's going to have to contend with one of two Independent challengers: the elk rancher who has made it his goal in life to harrass Risch (so much so that he decided to run as an Independent, to up his chances of being on the general election ballot), and Pro-Life, a Ron Paul supporter), who has made it his goal in life to be on the Idaho ballot every two years. Is any of this enough to really endanger Risch or McCain in getting their respective nominations? Highly unlikely, but it could make things a little more fun to watch.

Race tracker wiki: ID-Sen ID-01

AT&T's 2007 Financial Review [pdf] includes this brief snippet:

NSA Litigation There are 24 pending lawsuits that allege that we and other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance to the National Security Agency (NSA) in connection with intelligence activities that were initiated following the events of September 11, 2001. In the first filed case, Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class action filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, plaintiffs allege that the defendants have disclosed and are currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call records concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were a party. Plaintiffs seek damages, a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and other federal and California statutes. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The United States asserted the "state secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges and also filed a motion asking the court to either dismiss the complaint or issue a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss of both parties. Specifically, the Court ruled that the state secrets privilege does not prevent AT&T from asserting any statutory defense it may have, as appropriate, regarding allegations that it assisted the government in monitoring communication content. However, with regard to the calling records allegations, the Court noted that it would not require AT&T to disclose what relationship, if any, it has with the government. We and the U.S. government filed interlocutory appeals in July 2006. The case was argued before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 15, 2007. We are awaiting a decision. Management believes these actions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these matters.

Part of AT&T's vigorous defense and fight for amnesty appears to be the deployment of a well-known right-wing "think tank," Frontiers of Freedom in the districts of freshman Democrats, including Kirsten Gillibrand and Tim Walz.

A local blog, Bluestem Prairie, decided to do a little digging with a stellar report about the organization that was joining in on the attack with these robocalls.

Turns out, the FF has been fronting for corporations, including, AT&T for a while now. Here's what Common Cause has uncovered:

Frontiers of Freedom does not disclose its financial backers, but the Wall Street Journal reported in 2001 that the organization's main contributors were corporations such as Philip Morris, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.^[38] At the time, Frontiers of Freedom lobbied heavily against environmental regulations designed to reduce global warming,^[39] and also railed against plaintiffs who sued the tobacco companies after contracting lung cancer from smoking.^[40]

More recently, the Larstan Business Group accused Frontiers of Freedom of engaging in Astroturf lobbying on behalf of the telephone companies.^[41]   Larstan's report, it should be noted, was commissioned by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association,^[42] the main trade association for the cable television industry.

The report points out that Frontiers of Freedom has flip-flopped from being a critic of the telephone industry, to being one of its champions.  According to Larstan, in 2004, Frontiers of Freedom lambasted "the Bell monopolies" for not "do[ing] any of the
heavy-lifting normally associated with a free market,"^[43] and instead relying on government regulation to build their business. But in 2005, the organization praised the merger of AT&T and SBC Communications^[44] - two of the telephone industries biggest players - and also endorsed^[45] the Bell-backed regulations designed to ease their entry into the cable television business.  Qwest Communications has alleged that Frontiers of Freedom accepts contributions from AT&T.[46]

That charge from Qwest was leveled by Michael Ceballos, president of Qwest's operation in Wyoming, in an opinion column written in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle on July 27, 2005 (now offline, obtained through subscription) written in response to another by FF's founder, Malcom Wallop (former Senator from Wyoming):

As Mr. Wallop noted, he has over the years written critical columns about Qwest. Mr. Wallop is the founder and chairman of Frontiers of Freedom. AT&T contributes to this organization. The timing and distribution of these columns have occurred during times when AT&T was in a dispute with Qwest. We are not surprised at the timing of Mr. Wallop's column because Qwest has recently expressed concern over the proposed merger of AT&T and SBC.

As noted, FF doesn't disclose its financial backers, and a search of AT&T's site has yet to produce conclusive proof that AT&T is currently bankrolling the organization. But given their commitment to AT&T and their diligence in their "grassroots" lobbying for AT&T in that merger and now for telco amnesty, it seems a likely conclusion. Particularly when one considers the group's history with Exxon:

If you were the least bit nervous about all the worrying reports - from leading scientists, insurance companies and even the Pentagon - about human-induced climate change, don't worry: the Frontiers of Freedom (FF), a right-leaning think tank, is here to reassure you.

FF has established the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP) to alert "policy makers, the media, and the public to unreliable scientific claims and unjustified alarmism which often lead to public harm." If you are so inclined, you can subscribe to the "non-profit, non-partisan" Climate & Environment Weekly, CSPP's email bulletin that keeps track of why climate change is not the problem many make it out to be.

But if you want to find out who funds FF's climate change program, you won't find out by checking their website or annual report. However, over at ExxonMobil's website you'll discover that the CSPP was established in 2002 with a $100,000 grant from the world's biggest oil company.

ExxonMobil is so supportive of FF that in the last five years it has invested another $617,000 of shareholder cash to promote "informed discussion" on climate change issues.

They've also been active in "Hands Off the Internet," the astro-turfing group that fronts for AT&T and the other telephone and cable companies fighting against Net Neutrality. And in fighting  a pro-consumer effort in the Minnesota legislator that "would guarantee customers accurate information about billing and service area coverage." They've also been neck-deep in the recent debate over the Air Force's huge tanker contract, weighing in on the side of Boeing.

Looking into that deal, and the "public policy" groups involved in the process, the Washington Post noted:

Welcome to that special place where business and Washington intersect, where things often are not what they seem and keeping track of the players and their motives is as hard as following the aces in hands of a cardsharp... The companies have engaged top-shelf public relations specialists, opinion shapers and former military officials who now serve as their consultants. And they have enlisted vocal and sometimes stealthy support from policy and nonprofit groups, endorsements that carry the aura of integrity.

Which brings us smack dab back to telco amnesty and the fight over the FISA bill. What was true for the Northrop/Boeing contretemps is true for the fight for amnesty these groups. For all the urgent and inflammatory rhetoric about national security; for every group with a noble sounding name like Defense of Democracies, or Frontiers of Freedom, this fight is about corporate power and influence over the public good.

A group like Frontiers of Freedom has no higher concern than how well the pockets of its cronies are lined at the public expense, and in the great Reagan economic tradition, how much of that lucre trickles down to them. And make no mistake, their efforts are geared toward one key goal: electing Republicans to allow this cozy little system to be perpetuated.

That these groups exist and that they have undue influence on policy in a Bush administration is not great revelation. But any Democrat throwing their lot in with them to support the Protect AT&T Act should go in with their eyes wide open, and realize that in doing so, they are potentially sowing the seeds for their own potential defeat.

Furthering the aims of these organizations, of AT&T, of the Republicans at the expense of all else--little things like "First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act"--is a short-sighted and self-destructive path for any Democrat.

A new Rasmussen poll of the Oregon Senate race shows Republican incumbent Gordon Smith still under 50%, for the third month in a row.

Any incumbent who polls below 50% is considered potentially vulnerable and this month’s polling contains even more bad news for Smith—support for his potential Democratic challengers is increasing.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Oregon voters finds Smith leading Jeff Merkley by just three percentage points, 45% to 42%. In late March, he enjoyed a thirteen point lead. In February, he was ahead of Merkley by eighteen points.

When matched against Steve Novick, Smith leads by six percentage points, 47% to 41%. In the March poll, Novick trailed by eleven. In February, the gap was thirteen points.....

In Oregon, Smith is viewed favorably by 55% of the state’s voters, Novick by 46%, and Merkley by 42%. The numbers for both Democrats are trending up.

Those figures include just 18% with a Very Favorable opinion of their incumbent Senator. Thirteen percent (13%) have a Very Favorable view of Novick while 9% say the same about Merkley.

Oregon's primary is May 20, and Smith, though unopposed, has hit the airways with an attack ad aimed at both Democrats, all the while trying to present himself as the "change" candidate ("See? I'm just like Obama! Really! Change!")

The latest SUSA poll (May 1) has Merkley and Novick virtually tied, with Novick at 30% and Merkley at 28%, making up the double digit deficit he had in the April poll.  Given the decent performance of each of them in holding Smith under 50, the NRSC has another race to worry about.

On the Web:
Jeff Merkley for US Senate
Steve Novick for US Senate

Update: The DSCC has responded to Smith's "change" ad:

Race tracker wiki: OR-Sen

Dana Milbank has the special Mother's Day edition:

On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.

"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt's request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.

It has long been the custom to compare a popular piece of legislation to motherhood and apple pie. Evidently, that is no longer the standard. Worse, Republicans are now confronted with a John Kerry-esque predicament: They actually voted for motherhood before they voted against it.

Republicans, unhappy with the Democratic majority, have been using such procedural tactics as this all week to bring the House to a standstill, but the assault on mothers may have gone too far. House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

By voting against it?

Mother's Day, colleague's memorial services, nothing is sacred with Boehner and crew.

A few weeks ago, the NYT reported on the growing number of defense attorneys representing terrorism-related defendants concerned about their communications with their clients being intercepted. Now, more than 20 lawyers for Guantanamo inmates have officially accused the government of eavesdropping on what should be their privileged communications with clients.

In interviews and a court filing Tuesday, lawyers for detainees at Guantánamo said they believed government agents had monitored their conversations. The assertions are the most specific to date by Guantánamo lawyers that officials may be violating legal principles that have generally kept government agents from eavesdropping on lawyers.

"I think they are listening to my telephone calls all the time," said John A. Chandler, a prominent lawyer in Atlanta and Army veteran who represents six Guantánamo detainees.

Several of the lawyers, including partners at large corporate law firms, said the concerns had changed the way they went about their work apart from Guantánamo cases. A lawyer in Chicago, H. Candace Gorman, said in an affidavit that she was no longer accepting new clients of any type because she could not assure them of confidentiality.

The new filing, by the Center for Constitutional Rights, came in a 2007 lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act in which Guantánamo lawyers are seeking records to determine whether they have been targets of surveillance.

The CCR has more in this release:

New York – Last night, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel filed an opposition brief in Wilner v. NSA, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of 24 attorneys who represent detainees at Guantánamo – including CCR staff attorneys Gitanjali Gutierrez and Wells Dixon, as well as law professors and partners at prominent international law firms. These attorneys believe they may have been targeted by the government’s warrantless wiretapping program that began shortly after September 11, 2001 because of their representation of Guantánamo prisoners labeled "enemy combatants" by the government. They seek access to records showing whether the government has intercepted communications relating to their representation of these clients.

"The existence of the spying program inhibits our ability to do our work," said CCR attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez, a plaintiff in the case. "We sometimes have to warn clients and potential witnesses that their communications with us may be monitored by the government. The NSA program prevents us from assuring them of confidentiality, making clients and witnesses less likely to want to participate in any cases against the government."

Although CCR argues that any warrantless surveillance of the plaintiffs would be illegal, not only have the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to turn over the relevant records, they have refused to confirm or deny whether the plaintiffs were in fact subject to surveillance under the program. The newly-filed brief argues that the government must provide the records if they exist because the FOIA statute cannot be used to hide illegal activities....

"One of the striking things about this program is that it means opposing counsel – particularly the DOJ – may be listening in on our litigation strategy," said Shayana Kadidal, Managing Attorney for CCR’s Guantánamo Project and counsel in this case. "The uncertainty created by the existence of the NSA program makes it far more difficult for lawyers to challenge in court all the other illegal behavior of this administration in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Today’s filing is an attempt to determine whether all the warning signs of government surveillance are real or just false alarms."

This is as important a case as the 40 that are pending against the telcos which participated in the illegal wiretappiing program, so of course that means the government will undoubtely fight to shut it down. But beyond what it might potentially tell us about the program, it points to the chilling effect it has had on such a basic tenet of law as a lawyers ability to provide an adequate defense for a client.  

The breakdown of the rule of law doesn't extend just to the lawbreaking by this administration--the administration is fundamentally opposed to and intent upon dismantling our system of justice when it might infringe in any way upon the administration's conduct. This is the very basic and fundamental issue from which all of the abuses of this adminstration flow--the essential lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney cabal.

And it's the larger issue that is at stake in what has become a rather narrow fight over telco amnesty. Because the Bush assault on the rule of law isn't just against our justice system. It goes the very foundation of our nation upon the rule of law, our Constitution and how the branches of government function within it. There are some very fundamental issues at stake in this, even as this administration's days are numbered. It's what the fight to prevent Congress from immunizing the telcos--and by extension, the administration--represents.

That so many in Congress could be so willing to be a part of this dismantling--so complicit in the neutering of their own ability to govern co-equally is astounding.

Yay!!! We did it! Everyone rejoice in having the nagging over with. For  now.

Excellent work making our monetary goal. But I still want to get us over the 450 donations hump. We need 450 donations--one for every $1,000 of his own money Raimondo has put into this race.

Now part of this is personal. See, Tony Raimondo, Scott's DINO (and I really mean DINO--he changed his party registration specifically to run in this primary) is on the board of trustees for the National Association of Manufacturers. This organization, for no immediately apparent reason, has been committed to making sure AT&T and the other telcos get amnesty for their lawbreaking.

And the NAM has this blog that they call the "Shop Floor." (Stay with me here.) So on this blog, in support of the lawbreaking telcos, they've said some not so nice things about the bloggers (specifically me) working on the side of the Constitution. I admit it, I'm not above seeking revenge.

Reject the NAM, reject the corporate hijacking of our public policy. Do it with $5 or $10 to Scott. Show them what people power can do.

On the Web:
Kleeb for Senate
Daily Kos for Scott Kleeb ActBlue page

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen

We're getting close, guys. We've made all the arguments: about how is opponent is a rich Republican trying to buy this seat, about Scott's commitment to grassroots politics, about what he can do for Nebraska and for the nation if we send him, instead of another DINO, to D.C.

The first hurdle is Tuesday's primary. The last little bit you give today might mean a last minute radio spot that otherwise wouldn't go up, a last tank of gas to get volunteers out on primary day to knock on doors (and it takes a lot of driving to campaign in Nebraska).

Our goal: $20,000 and 450 donations (one donation for every $1,000 of Raimondo's personal loan of $450K to his own campaign) by the end of today. Send the message that people power can compete with big money by contributing to Scott's campaign.

To sweeten the deal, when we get up to 400 donations, I'll post a picture.

On the Web:
Kleeb for Senate
Daily Kos for Scott Kleeb ActBlue page

Update: Just three more donations, people! For the picture that is. We're so close to our goal!

Update 2: Yay!!!!

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen

Scott Kleeb made a great impression with the Lincoln Journal Star editorial board:

Nebraska Democrats should choose Scott Kleeb as their nominee for the U.S. Senate race.

Kleeb offers an appealing blend of intelligence, drive to get things done and thoughtfulness on the issues....

The other major contender for the Democratic nomination is Columbus industrialist Tony Raimondo, who recently changed his political registration from Republican. Raimondo also is a strong candidate who has a track record of creating jobs. Raimondo would be especially effective on business and economic issues.

Kleeb, however, has the ability to inspire. Smart, focused and talented, he has great growth potential. The Journal Star editorial board believes Kleeb is best suited to carry the Democratic banner in the general election race for the U.S. Senate.

Anybody who had the opportunity to meet Scott in Chicago at the Yearly Kos convention last summer will recognize the man the Journal Star editors describe. He would be an asset to Nebraska, to the party, and to the nation in the Senate.

The primary is next Tuesday. You can help send a real Democrat to the Senate.

We're looking for $20,000 and 450 donations (one donation for every $1,000 of Raimondo's personal loan of $450K to his own campaign) by the end of the day tomorrow. Send the message that people power can compete with big money by contributing to Scott's campaign.

On the Web:
Kleeb for Senate
Daily Kos for Scott Kleeb ActBlue page

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen

This doesn't sound good:

Telecom companies have presented congressional Democrats with a set of proposals on how to provide immunity to the businesses that participated in a controversial government electronic surveillance program, a House Democratic aide said Wednesday....

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday a FISA deal is "still in flux" but he described the latest developments as "promising" and said he hoped to have a solution soon.

House officials declined to discuss the specifics of the proposed immunity language by the telecoms.

Although it remains to be seen if congressional Democrats will accept the telecom companies' proposal, the communication between the two sides signifies that progress is being made.

Have Dem leaders really moved in the discussions from whether to provide amnesty to how to provide it? Beyond that, why in the hell do the telcos have a seat at the negotiating table on this issue at all?

I doubt Congress invited the Mafia to the table when it wrote the RICO  Act. Seems pretty unlikely that there were any drug kingpins at the table when Congress wrote the Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute. But AT&T gets to write this one?

The telcos participated in illegal, warrantless spying--not a "controversial government electronic surveillance program"--in illegal spying. They broke the law. They should have their day in court along with the plaintiffs in the cases against them. But they shouldn't be writing the damn law that lets them off the hook.

Then there's this:

Meanwhile, Senate Select Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) has begun circulating a proposal on the FISA bill to all key stakeholders, hoping to break the deadlock, several members and aides also confirmed on Wednesday.

With Hoyer and Rockefeller on the case, it's looking more and more like the Protect AT&T Act is back in business.

We're over half of the way to our goal of raising $20,000 this week for Kleeb's campaign to win the Democratic nomination for Nebraska's open Senate seat.

The primary is next Tuesday, and his opponent, Tony Raimondo has opened up his seemingly bottomless checkbook,  loaning his own campaign $450,000. We're trying to help Scott contend with his opponent's personal wealth through people-power: $20,000 or 450 donations (one for every $1,000 of Raimondo's money), whichever comes first. (Though both would be pretty cool.)

Contribute if you can. Help help send a real Democrat to the Senate, and send the message that people power can compete with big money.

On the Web:
Kleeb for Senate
Daily Kos for Scott Kleeb ActBlue page

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen

When Scott Kleeb announced his candidacy in February, I talked with him about what brought him to politics in 2006, and where he was going to take this race.

JM: What did you learn from 2006 that you're taking in to 2008?

SK: I started the campaign in 2006 thinking that I had to have a whole lot of answers, thinking that people were going to be turning to me and saying "what do you think on this" and "How are you going to address it" and there's an element of truth to that, when you're electing somebody you want them to be able to think through an issue, have an opinion on an issue. That's obvious. However, when we really started to pick up was when I realized the other element, which is at some point people are engaged in your campaign for their own reasons. That our campaign became just that—it wasn't about me, it wasn't about you, it was about new people getting engaged in the political process and enlivening that process. They were there for their own reasons, they were there for their own communities, they were there for their own future. And together we became this vehicle for that. I tell you, once I realized that, it just had a tremendous impact. That's when our campaign really lit a spark and took off....

That's the way we're going to have to run this campaign. It's not just the way we're going to have to run to win, that's what it's about. Asking people to become engaged in the issues and to become engaged in our democracy ... whether it's on the netroots or whether it is on the call-in shows or whether it is on a campaign. That's the thing that is happening in this election, it's that people want to talk about politics. It is again something that's engaging for people and there's a desire there to be part of that change....

Nebraskans are engaged and they want to take back their state and their nation. They turned out in huge numbers for the state's first ever caucus, and have kept up the fervor by putting their money solidly behind the Dems in the presidential race.

That's what Scott Kleeb is counting on--an engaged and energized electorate that will put him over the top next Tuesday in his primary race with the newly-minted "Democrat" Tony Raimondo. As I wrote yesterday, Raimondo has made up for his lack of grassroots fundraising by loaning his campaign $450,000 of his own money.

Scott can't compete with that kind of personal fortune, but in Nebraska's relatively cheap media market, it won't take that kind of cash to keep Scott competitive. He's got the ground game working and we can help boost that by keeping him on the air. That's why we set a $20,000 goal by the end of the day Friday. I'd like to set a new goal--450 donations, one for every $1,000 Raimondo has invested. That's people power. We can do it.

You can help send a real Democrat to the Senate, and send the message that people power can compete with big money by contributing to Scott's campaign.

On the Web:
Kleeb for Senate
Daily Kos for Scott Kleeb ActBlue page

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen

It just gets better and better with the Bush Buffoons:

Hundreds of employee laptops are unaccounted for at the U.S. Department of State, which conducts delicate, often secret, diplomatic relations with foreign countries, an internal audit has found.

As many as 400 of the unaccounted for laptops belong to the department’s Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The program provides counterterrorism training and equipment, including laptops, to foreign police, intelligence and security forces.

Ironically, the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program is administered by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which is responsible for the security of the department’s computer networks and sensitive equipment, including laptops, among other duties. It also protects foreign diplomats during visits here....

Auditors found that the department had lost track of $30 million worth of equipment, according to one official, "the vast majority of which . . . perhaps as much as 99 per cent," was laptops.

It's keystone kops all throughout this administration. Yes, human beings are fallible, and we all make mistakes. But the level of incompetence demonstrated by this administration is as mind-boggling as the deliberate malfeseance has been. We can only hope that there weren't really serious breaches of national security this time.

Which of course leads to the obvious conclusion: reason #4,297 for not giving any part of this administration access to the kind of information about the lives of Americans that they constantly seek, particulalry with the lack of Congressional oversight they demand. The combination of incompetence and disregard for the law should have long ago sufficient for this Congress to say "enough."

When Joe Lieberman is actually trying to pry information out of DHS, you know we've got a serious problem:

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., are seeking detailed explanations from the Department of Homeland Security regarding a new initiative to secure federal information technology systems.

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the Senators reiterate their support for the Administration’s heightened attention to cyber security as evidenced by creation of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI). The CNCI, formally established in January, is intended to strengthen the federal government’s ability to secure the electronic networks and databases upon which it relies.

But, given the Administration’s request to triple DHS’ cyber security budget over the past year, the Senators are asking for specific information on issues ranging from the secrecy of the project to its heavy reliance on contractors to the lack of involvement by the private sector, which controls the vast majority of the nation’s cyber infrastructure.

While making it absolutely clear that he supports the administration on cyber security, even Lieberman doesn't have enough information on this one. His letter contains 17 questions, many of them multiple point, trying to determine information that they've been trying to get at since they first asked for a briefing five months ago.

The program is another potential assault on our privacy rights. This is a wide-ranging program in which the entire intelligence community--including the NSA--will be tasked with monitoring the nation's computer networks. Why should this be such a concern to even Lieberman? Wired sum that up:

Why might citizens be worried about privacy and civil liberties? Consider that the whole initiative appears to have been launched after the Director of National Intelligence told the President Bush that a cyber attack might wreak as much economic havoc as 9/11 did.

Consider that the NSA, which currently protects classified networks, wants to expand into protecting all non-classified federal government networks. Consider that Congress is set to legalize the NSA's monitoring rooms in the nation's phone and internet infrastructure.

For its part, the FBI says it also needs access to the internet's backbone, while the Air Force is hyping its own efforts at cyber defense and offense. Meanwhile, THREAT LEVEL's sister blog Danger Room reports that DARPA is getting in on the hot cyber-action, with a project to make a fake internet to develop new cyber attacks and defenses....

Now it seems the only question is whether the government will be able to turn the net into a controllable, monitorable and trackable pre-internet AOL-type service or whether the chaotic net will live on as just another frontier for the military-industrial complex to start an arm's race and rake in billions of government dollars.

This attempt to expand the reach of the intelligence agencies--given their proven and blatant disregard for following the law--deserves to be questioned, and both the House and Senate Intelligence committees should pick up the theme and join Lieberman in asking these important questions.

Yet another reason the Protect AT&T Act--or any other intelligence desire of this administration--should not be granted. Chertoff's five-month refusal to cooperate with Lieberman, of all people, proves that these people cannot be trusted with our privacy.

Poor fundraising numbers won't deter a rich Republican like Tony Raimondo from trying to hoodwink Nebraska's Democrats in next week's primary. He's the former Republican and buddy of Bush (who nearly got the appointment of Manufacturing Czar in this adminstration) who decided it'd be easier to buy the Senate seat being vacated by Hagel as a Democrat than a Republican. So that's what he's doing.

U.S. Senate contender Tony Raimondo is well on his way to becoming the half-million-dollar man.  The Columbus, Neb., chairman of Behlen Manufacturing Co. has pumped $450,000 of his own money into his campaign.

That means about 82 percent of Raimondo's total campaign funds have come from his wallet, based on disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission....

[Scott] Kleeb, a teacher at Hastings College, had raised about $364,000 from 1,500 donors through April 23, said Joe Zepecki, a campaign spokesman. Raimondo had raised about $552,000 as of that date. Of that amount, about $102,000 came from individual donors.

"I think this shows there is a very, very stark contrast between a guy who's giving $450,000 to himself and a guy who has 1,500 people willing to contribute," Zepecki said.

Raimondo is going to throw a big chunk of his own personal fortune--and now that he's invoked the Millionaire's amendment, a big chunk of the personal fortunes of a lot of his Republican buddies--into buying this seat.

There couldn't be a bigger contrast between Raimondo and Scott Kleeb, the real Democrat in the race. New Nebraska Network sums it up:

One campaign has the grassroots. One campaign has the organization. One campaign has the excitement level to take on Mike Johanns.

And one campaign has a checkbook.

We're betting that a big checkbook won't be enough to sway Nebraska's Democrats in next week's primary. You can help send a real Democrat to the Senate by contributing. We're going to try to raise $20,000 for Scott by the end of this Friday. We're going to pitch our hundreds of real Democrats against Raimondo's checkbook in this primary to Scott win a week from tomorrow.

He's not just the better Democrat in this primary, he's the only Democrat!

On the Web:
Kleeb for Senate
Daily Kos for Scott Kleeb ActBlue page

Update: Ok, you guys did it. I said you'd get a picture when we hit 50 donations, and as of right now, we're at 51. So here you go, from the Homecoming parade in Kearney, NE in October, 2006:

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen

The ACLU is activating its huge membership with this notice (via e-mail):

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Late Friday night, the ACLU caught wind of a dangerous backroom deal brewing. The "deal" would rush a House vote that would push through a dangerous sellout on government spying powers, possibly in the next few days.

We need you to immediately contact your member of Congress. Let your representative know you’re watching and expect him or her to stand firm. That means no immunity for lawbreaking phone and internet companies, and no spying on Americans without a warrant.

Let your member of Congress know you’re watching!

Back in February, the House stood up to President Bush’s fear-mongering tactics by letting the so-called "Protect America Act" expire. This ill-named bill eviscerated the protections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and violated the constitutional rights of Americans.

This breakthrough victory for civil liberties came only because you and other ACLU activists refused to yield. Because of your emails and phone calls, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer rallied defenders of freedom to hold their ground.

But now, word comes that House leadership may be working hand-in-hand with Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has spearheaded efforts to give immunity to law-breaking phone companies that provided mountains of customer data to the government without warrants.

As discussions continue, it’s critical that House leadership avoid buckling to pressure from the White House or Senator Rockefeller at all costs. House leadership -- and every representative -- need to draw a line in the sand by rejecting any compromise that would undo the achievement we fought so hard for in February.

Make no mistake: any "compromise" that is acceptable to Senator Rockefeller and the President will undoubtedly let lawbreakers off the hook and seriously put at risk -- or even end -- lawsuits that may be the only way to get to the bottom of crimes that were committed by phone companies and Bush administration officials.

Demand that the House Stand Firm on FISA!

Let’s make it clear. We won’t tolerate:

• Backroom deals on telecom immunity. Lawsuits may be our last chance to expose the truth about illegal spying activities by telecom companies and the Bush administration.
• Backroom deals that let election year fear-mongering steal our freedom and undermine the rule of law.
• Backroom deals that give Bush new powers to spy on Americans without a warrant.

With your help, we have worked relentlessly to protect freedom in the long-running FISA debate. Now, we need to make sure all that work isn’t undone by backroom deals. So, please, urge your representative to stand firm.

Let’s make sure every member of Congress knows how proud we are that the House has stood its ground and how outraged we will be if our representatives and House leadership reverse themselves now.

Please act quickly,

Caroline Fredrickson
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

P.S. Once you’ve emailed your representative, don’t forget to follow up with a phone call.

The ACLU has made it easy. Use those links provided in their e-mail to contact your representative. Follow up with calls to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at (202) 225-3130, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-0100 or (202) 225-4965. They're the leaders, it's time they act like it and resist any pressure from the caucus minority Blue Dogs or from the administration on amnesty.