Chris Dodd is cool; Reid needs a spine; Lieberman finds one more reason for me to dislike him

The Huffington Post was full of some interesting stories today. More on the whole FISA controversy. As you may know, there are essentially two bills, one that says 'awww, it's ok telecommunications companies, I forgive you for allowing the government to listen in on my phone calls without a warrant. I mean, what's a violation of civil liberties among friends, right?' and another that, well, doesn't say that. Both versions of the bill (from what I gather from the CBS article linked to from the HP) include "provisions [Bush] said were required to pursue wiretaps of individuals with a minimum of judicial oversight," and the only difference is the so-called immunity provision for telecommunications companies that allowed wiretaps, etc. without warrants in the past.

Harry Reid initially just wanted to put forward the telecomm company friendly bill (put forward by the Senate Intelligence Committee) for a vote. However, many people were obviously ticked off by this, Chris Dodd included. Increasing his awesomeness ten-fold, Chris Dodd is threatening a filibuster on the vote, which is going to make for some great CSPAN watching. Explaining his actions, Dodd said:

“Providing retroactive immunity to companies that may have violated the law will
set a dangerous precedent...Companies who violated the trust of thousands of
their customers will be immune to prosecution and the details of their actions
will stay hidden."

So basically, Dodd placed a hold on the legislation, which Reid "apparently" (CBS' words, not mine) is ignoring. Caving in to constituent pressure and the pleas of interns in his office after having to answer the 5 millionth complaint from a constituent about this bill (ok, I made that last part up, but it is probably true. I started my first day interning for Sen. Durbin after the Federal Marriage Amendment debate in the Senate...), Reid is now bringing both versions of the bill up for a vote. Why would he do that?

“I have determined that in this situation, it would be wrong of me to simply
choose one committee’s bill over the other," Reid said in a statement.

Exasperated sigh. But in other news, Sen. Lieberman finds another reason for me to dislike him! As if I needed another one. The Huffington Post leads me to an article on Politico that states that Leiberman is endorsing McCain tomorrow. I mean, back in the days of the "Straight Talk Express," McCain wasn't such a bad guy, for a Republican, of course. And out of the hodgepodge of Republican candidates now, he may even still shine the brightest. But Lieberman, come on. Who are you trying to woo? The moderates who loved McCain in 2000 have largely left him. Too many 'stand by the presidents' later, McCain is hardly the bastion of moderation and independence that he used to be. If Lieberman is trying to form some kind of independent/moderate alliance, he picked the wrong partner. As the article states, this endorsement is only bad news for McCain, who is still trying to prove that he's "a real conservative," whatever that means anymore. In the end, I'm not against independents or moderation, but I am for standing for something...anything, believing in something...anything. Lieberman needs to figure out both of those things, or lose any base he had for sheer confusion.

(p.s. If I disappear in the near future, I am likely being interrogated by the government for my library record. I had to write two lengthy papers this quarter: one on Al-Jazeera and other Arab media outlets and the other on the protection of hateful or offensive speech which included several books about the Nazi march on Skokie in the 70s.)