Pesky Surveillance Measure Gets in the Way of Running for Re-Election

From the June 21 (Saturday) edition of the The Wall Street Journal in an article written by Siobhan Gorman and titled Many Democrats Object as House Passes Spying Bill.

The House voted 293-129 for a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecom companies from lawsuits arising from the government’s war on terror. The measure now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to win approval.

“Despite broad opposition from Democrats, the party’s leaders concluded Congress had to pass a surveillance measure. They faced an August deadline, when previously authorized
surveillance orders would begin to expire. Conservative Democrats in tough re-election races were clamoring for a bill. Party leaders wanted to pass the surveillance bill, so they could move on to issues where they would have more election-year traction, such as the economy, congressional aides said.

Still, 128 Democrats voted against the bill. Rep. Holt said the compromise measure "permits massive warrantless surveillance" and contravenes Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure. The compromise bill turns the notion of innocent-until-proven-guilty on its head and "alters the relationship between the government and the people.

Let me get this straight. In their rush to get the pesky surveillance measure out of the way so they can move on to issues that will help them get re-elected, the House passed an electronic surveillance bill that Rep Holt (Democrat from New Jersey) says “permits massive warrantless surveillance” and violates our Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

It’s not the surveillance measure that’s got me riled up. Well, it does but that’s a whole ‘nother blog post. It’s the rush to sweep this pesky issue under the rug so conservative Democrats in tough re-election races can have more appealing issues to wave before the voters’ noses.

What are we paying these people for? To get re-elected? Or to represent the people and run the country?

I’m one of those folks that held out hope when the Democrats took Congress in 2006 that our elected representatives would get back on track by putting the country ahead of their political careers and personal interests.

Silly me.