dad's rolling over in his grave.

why should that play well down here? conservatives dislike that act as much as liberals. both see it as the heavy hand of government forcing its way into your life and violating your liberties.

i havent been following the renewal debate too closely, so maybe they removed a bunch of the more controversial provisions.

does anyone remember if russ ever talked about it during any of the debates? i wonder how many liberal voters will regret casting their vote for him over this and the flag burning amendment? both votes strike me as clear attempted pandering to someone, but im not sure anyone needed to be pandered TO with those votes. its not like republicans are gonna cross over and vote for him.

This is probably a holdover from Gephardt's days. Gephardt voted for the Act, (it was passed after 9/11 and I know that Gephardt had misgivings about how the Act was being enforced but supported many of the provisions.) My guess is they wanted to be consistent, while trying to shore up his right flank.

Do you speak for the entire electorate in Jeffco, Ben?? Just curious.

had lunch with an old friend today. he assured me that patriot act stuff was part of russ talking points, certainly toward the end of the primary.

and when did i claim to speak for all of jeffco? unlike russ, and probably you concerned, i was born here, raised here, and have lived here all my life. i know our people and our politics, -- on both sides. and im saying that this made no sense from the standpoint of courting jefferson county voters. hell, steve wouldn't have voted to renew this legislation- certainly not as it stood. and i know jeff smith wouldnt have.

what would be interesting is if some prominant dem would run on russ' right AND left. pro life but then hammer russ for his vote to restrict free speech and for the patriot act.

i just want to say again, regarding my above posts, that its all moot if the act was majorly reformed to remove the controversial sections. there were some very legitimate law enforcement and anti-terrorism tools in that legislation that deserve to be renewed, and should be provided the act isnt simply re-adopted as-is.

"what would be interesting is if some prominant dem would run on russ' right AND left."

You know what would be really interesting? If Democrats in Jefferson County would support Democratic officeholders, whether on the trail or once they're in office.

Now, THAT would be pretty interesting.

Howie

youre right. its good to know that no democrat should ever primary another one while in office, regardless of the job they're doing or their ideological fit for the district or area. be sure to tell that to anyone who worked on Claire's campaign last time. considering some of them work for Russ now, i'm sure they'll be glad to hear it. and its also good to know that its only jefferson county democrats who speak ill of democratic elected officials. because ive never heard a single bad word about any other democrat ever from anyone living in any other single county or city in the state.

screw that. i didnt vote republican last time against russ, and i wont this time or any other time. but that doesnt mean i have to worship him.

In defense of Russ, I'm not sure everyone understands what was voted on today. Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, and other leading Dems voted for renewal as well. Most of the provisions aren't controversial.

The library search provision was modified to require the FBI Director to personally sign off on such requests and tightens the rules.

One of the other significant issues involves roving wire taps so that a phone tap isn't to a specific number, but to a person. The FBI has had such authority for the mafia for years, allowing it in terrorism investigations shouldn't be that controversial. Both of the above are also still sunsetted after 10 years. I'm betting it's reduced in conference.

as i said before, if the bill was paired down some, its probably all right. my point was that theres no real political benefit, specifically found in jefferson county, to voting for simply renewing the old act. its good to hear it was tightened up.

Personally, I am very disappointed with our Congressman.

I looked up the bill on http://thomas.loc.gov/ just to see if it was in fact a tailored down version. As far as I can tell none of the amendments that passed did anything really effective to change the bill. Now I am not in favor of someone running against a sitting Congressman at a time when the Democrats no longer have a majority, but I do think it is our responsibility to write and call our congressman to voice our concerns regarding his vote on this legislation and future legislation.

Please call, write or email:

Washington DC Office:
1232 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC, 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2671
Fax: (202) 225-7452

http://www.house.gov/carnahan/contact.shtml

Congressman Carnahan, I know you can do better.

And here I spent nearly a year yapping about the evils of the Patriot Act!

did anyone here _really_ expect russ to vote differently?

uhm, yeah. again, assuming its not fixing what needs to be fixed, yeah. if i may paraphrase him from a campaign stop

'if john ashcroft is for it, im against it'

im sure i could dig up some debate/forum/event video of him talking about it, but i guess my memory could be a little hazy.

I hope someone from the Carnahan camp reads this stuff and gives a response. Not a response to folks who just want to knock Russ, but one that addresses the issues. I like Russ-he is surrounded by strong WOMEN!!

Pftt. I have two words for Russ. Fuck you.

The bill that passed the House with Russ's support was an extreme version of reauthorization. Amendments such as Bernie Sanders' provision preventing the government from reviewing library records were NOT part of the bill Russ voted for, because of restrictive action by the House Rules Committee.

The Senate will probably pass a tamer version of reauthorization, but that's not what Russ voted for.

Russ needs someone to challenge him from the left, preferably both in the primary and also as an independent or third-party candidate in the general. His policies drift to the right, just like this, when he and his handlers focus on the area halfway between Russ 2004 and Bill Federer. Because of demographic changes and 2001 redistricting, the 3d District is no longer conservative, so there is no need to pander to the right. Challenge from the left would refocus the ideological playing field to the left, back where it belongs. In this way, progressive challenger(s) could be successful and beneficial to all even while "losing" to Russ in the actual vote count.

Fodder for the right candidate to primary Russ, indeed.

Oracle, thats just stupid. If we learned anything from the rick johnson race its that the 3rd congressional district IS conservative. A real republican could beat Congressman Carnahan.

The best way to motivate a congressman is through mail, phone calls, and email...

If you're as pissed as me about the Patriot ACT then send something in the mail...

Washington DC Office:
1232 Longworth House Office Building
Washington DC, 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2671
Fax: (202) 225-7452

http://www.house.gov/carnahan/contact.shtml

Jeffco and the 22nd senate district to which Peter alludes are conservative and are in the 3rd CD, but they're not the 3rd CD. Jeffco is far outnumbered in the 3rd by straight-Dem and progressive voters in U City, Maplewood, Webster, Kirkwood (part) and south city neighborhoods like Shaw (part), Grand Oak Hill, Tower Grove East, Benton Park, Gravois Park, Dogtown, Ellendale, Clifton Heights and Kingshighway Hills. And Ste Gen County was Kerry's Number 1 rural county in the state.

Even Albert Pujols wouldn't beat Russ or any other Dem in the 3rd if he ran as a Republican!

Nevertheless, Peter's suggestion to rattle Russ' cage is a good one.

Ste Gen is conseravative as well. It went for Kerry because the old party line still works down there. Continued representation by candidates out of line with their values could see an eroision in this voting bloc. a major shift hasnt happened yet, but it certainly was a quick shift in the rest of outstate. might not take much to break the dam there either. but who know. it could continue voting democratic until the end of the world.

I thought the B. Sanders amendment was needed and emailed several members Congress. By the way, there were some Republicans that also sponsored the amendment---(Sanders' amendment, which was co-sponsored by Reps. Butch Otter (R-ID), John Conyers (D-MI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Tom Udall (D-CO), cut Justice Department funds for bookstore and library searches under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act). There are still a few ---if very few --- Republicans who are concerned are individual liberties and do not like the "big brother" approach of the federal govt. (it didn't get me very far in the primary, but at least I tried.) Anyway, as I recall during the forums---and I was at all of them, Russ took a more moderate approach than Jeff Smith and Steve Stoll. One of the above folks is wrong in quoting "if Ashcroft is for it, I'm against it"--as being that of Russ, That statement was actually made by Jeff Smith.

Joan,

no, russ said it too. at least something very, very close to it. hence why i said i was paraphrasing him or something like that (yes, im too lazy to scroll up and look to see exactly what i said)

Ok, Ben-- I'm not going to argue--if you say so. Russ has been so busy generating support for his crusade against privatizing Social Security (he has held 4 townhall meetings and an on-line chat hour) that I don't know where he stands on some other issues, such as the energy bill. How do you think he is going to vote on the Energy bill?
When are we ever going to stop our dependence on foreign oil?

Russ did not vote to renew the ACT so he could appeal to conservatives or anyone else. He voted to renew the ACT because that is what he thought was the right thing to do. This is the same mess that Holden got into. Holden also voted his conscience and look what it got him. When Congressmen or Governors or any other official votes how they really feel, instead of tailoring their vote to specific groups, they get slammed. And besides, Russ has been fighting harder than most other dems in the state to stop the privatization of social security and to support stem research. This one vote, on this one issue, should not make dems start naming off prospective democratic primary challengers. If you are so offended by the vote then call him or write him, but don't try to recruit people to run against him because of this vote. You should be ashamed. This is what causes us to loose!

We don't lose because we question our leaders and what they do; Democrats lose becasue we continue to nominate candidates or are uninspiring. Russ is a good and decent man, but does he inspire you to become committed to the democratic cause? does he make you a true believer in what he is working for? Does he have a vision? I have no problems with Russ, I think he is doing a fairly decent job and should be relected (unless he votes for CAFTA) but he is an example of what the Democratic Party has to struggle with. Our candidates don't inspire confidence. Hell, I havd no idea what John Kerry's positions were by the election time except that I knew he would be a better president than George W.

Democrats need to wake up and realize that we need candidates who, although they are "too liberal" or "too conservative" on some things, we can agree that they make us proud to be Democrats. Illinois has done it with Obama and Durbin, New Jersey with Corzine, even frickin' Montana has done it with Schweitzer. But we contune to tear our clothes and whine about getting our butts kicked by the Republicans in Missouri while we look at nominating mediocre, barely good enough candidates across the state and struggle to find people to run against vulnerable candidates.

Sorry for the rant...

I would agree to a point. We have some very uninspiring democrats across the state...very uninspiring. But is that cause to go find other democrats to run in primaries that could jeopardize the seat we already hold?! No! And in fact, I am inpired by Russ. Believe it or not he never had intentions to run for office, and he is there solely becuase he thinks he is working for the greater good, and changing the lives of Americans everyday in a positive way...not to seek higher office or to be known as a politician. I find that very inspiring.

hmm intentions over a decade in the making i should think....

You're wrong.

oh, you're right Ian. I guess the AP has it wrong in this article

http://www.jsonline.com/election2000/ap/jun03/ap-carnahan-congre061803.asp?format=print

when it says he ran for congress in the bootheel in 1990.

and these minutes from the UMR Student Government meeting

http://campus.umr.edu/stuco/minutes/1990-1991/16oc90mn.html

where he came to talk to them are clearly made up as well.

whew. thanks for clearing that up for me Ian.

theres nothing on earth wrong with being politically ambitious. but dont ascribe some Cincinatus-like qualities where they dont belong. be real about things.

Well well well. Congratulations. I will tell you that you are the first person I have heard in two years talk about that race. I think you are the only one who remembers. I should have thought twice about challenging you, because you certainly stooped me. I really am shocked that you found that information. Do me a favor, and keep it to yourself will ya? Thanks.
-Ian

Ian, why should Ben keep that information to himself, are you afraid Russ might be mistaken for a self-serving carpetbagger?

Nope.