Why did 58 Democrats flip on FISA from no to YES since last year?

I don't have any ranting to add to this matter, as that's not really Swing State Project style; I'll leave that to Glenn Greenwald and the good folks over at Open Left and Daily Kos.

What interested me is that now we have a series of bookends, where we can measure how far we've come on changing the debate on funding the Iraq War and on FISA. Short answer, judging by the raw vote totals, is: not very far on the Iraq War, and we've gone way backwards on FISA. (Although comparing today's FISA vote against the "Protect America Act" from last August is kind of apples and oranges, as today seemed to turn more on the narrow issue of retroactive immunity for telecoms rather than the overarching issue of spying on American citizens. I'd guess that fewer Congresspeople were bothered by the idea of letting the telecoms skate than by the much larger issues that were at stake last August.)

FISA
2007 total: 227 aye - 183 no - 23 NV
Dems in 2007: 41 aye - 181 no - 9 NV
GOP in 2007: 186 aye - 2 no - 14 NV
2008 total: 293 aye - 129 no - 13 NV
Dems in 2008: 105 aye - 128 no - 3 NV
GOP in 2008: 188 aye - 1 no - 10 NV

58 who flipped from no to aye (i.e. good to bad): Gary Ackerman, Mike Arcuri, Joe Baca, Brian Baird, Shelly Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Tim Bishop, Rick Boucher, Nancy Boyda, Corrine Brown, GK Butterfield, Dennis Cardoza, Kathy Castor, Emanuel Cleaver, Jim Clyburn, Joe Crowley, Norm Dicks, Rahm Emanuel, Eliot Engel, Gabby Giffords, Kirsten Gillibrand, Al Green, Gene Green, Luis Gutierrez, Jane Harman, Tim Holden, Paul Kanjorski, Dale Kildee, Ron Kind, Jim Langevin, Nita Lowey, Tim Mahoney, Carolyn McCarthy, Jerry McNerney, Greg Meeks, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Solomon Ortiz, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Perlmutter, Nick Rahall, Silvestre Reyes, Dutch Ruppersberger, Adam Schiff, David Scott, Joe Sestak, Brad Sherman, Albio Sires, Adam Smith, John Spratt, Bart Stupak, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie Thompson, Mark Udall, John Yarmuth

9 Dems went from no vote to no; this includes some of our newest: Bill Foster, and Donna Edwards, on her second day on the job. 3 Dems and 1 Republican went from no to no vote; the Republican was Walter Jones. 12 Republicans and 6 Dems went from no vote to yes: the Dems were Don Cazayoux, Travis Childers, Ruben Hinojosa, Ron Klein, Laura Richardson, and Ike Skelton. 8 Republicans went from yes to no vote.

Call it a “supercave,” in fact, if Kit Bond likes it this much:

“I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get.”

..."About 45 percent of Democrats crossed the aisle, 105 in all, with just one Republican, Illinois’ Timothy Johnson, joining the 128 Democrats in opposition."

I just got off the phone with Caroline Fredrickson from the ACLU, and the news is about what you'd expect if you have witnessed Democratic House behavior over the past six months. The bottom line is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are disorganized and giving no signals to members on the FISA wiretapping expansion and retroactive immunity to telecom companies, which is going to result in horrific legislation. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller is once again inviting Mike McConnell into closed hearings on how to fix the FISA law, and the markup is next week. There are no drafts of legislation around, which is a bad The Senate Judiciary Committee is hamstrung by Dianne Feinstein, who prevents a majority, and by the instincts of Democrat leaders who, in a conflicts between Judiciary and Intelligence, will go with Intelligence because of a perceived fear of national security weakness.

Rockefeller, in order to get something 'bipartisan' that can pass the Senate, is working with Kit Bond to draft something that can get to 60 votes. Bond of course is close to McConnell, and so it's likely that the bill coming out of the Senate Judiciary is going to contain retroactive immunity for telecom companies (thank you lobbyist Jamie Gorelick) and a permanent fix to FISA that expands executive power. Reid and Pelosi, ironically, by ordering Democrats to move quickly so as to fix the problem they caused in July, are just accelerating the process of crafting this horrendous bill. This is complicated of course by the millions that telecom companies give to members on the Hill to prevent things like net neutrality from passing, though of course here too there's no logic since much of that money goes to Republicans.

In the House, the Intelligence Committee is slightly better, but we have no drafts of legislation and it's going to be marked up next week. Conyers on Judiciary, though opposed to FISA expansion, isn't doing anything about this through his committee. The alternative to 'fixing' this legislation is to simply let the six month FISA extension of authority expire in February, and go back to the regime we had prior to August. There is literally no reason to do what the Democrats are about to do in the House and Senate.

Remember that horrible bill the Senate passed earlier this year? The one that had virtually no Fourth Amendment protections? Ok, now imagine Congressman Hoyer and Senator Bond putting a really pretty, really meaningless bow around it to distract you from what’s actually inside. Then they added a giveaway to the phone companies. There. Now you have the current FISA bill. Let me explain.

Court review? Pssh. Please. This is how it would work: The government wants to tap someone’s phone. It claims “exigent circumstances” and begins to do so. Then it goes to the FISA Court to be granted a warrant. “Hold up,” says the court. “This application is problematic and based on heresay.” Now the government starts the appeals process and that goes on for heaven knows how long. When does the surveillance stop on the problematic target? Um, never. The government is allowed to begin tapping without the courts and continue tapping when the court says no, provided it appeals. Nice, strong and meaningful judicial review, huh?

Immunity? Yes. Yes, it is. Here’s why: This immunity “compromise” sets the bar so low that anyone can clear it. Immunity hinges on whether a document from the president or government exists asking the companies to comply? We know they have them. You know who told us? The president. Asking the phone companies to put on their Sunday best, waltz to the courthouse and present a note from the leader of the free world does not a full and fair airing of the facts make. It’s a farce and, frankly, it’s offensive to those of us who cherish our privacy rights. Congress will be opening a Pandora’s box if this provision becomes law. What’s to prevent these companies from handing over our information again? Absolutely nothing.