Thursday, February 28, 2008

FISA Fight: Chris Cannon Thinks You're Stupid

Chris Cannon is, predictably, carrying water for Bush's FISA fear campaign, shilling the "Trial Lawyer" schtick in defense of the Protect AT&T Act.

That seems to be the new Majority’s motto. If it hurts trial lawyers, it is bad for America. This latest FISA debate illustrates that perfectly.
This legislation is NOT unconstitutional nor was the original wiretapping program, much to the chagrin of far left types.
Individuals overseas, who are NOT US citizens, have never enjoyed, nor should they enjoy, US Constitutional rights. But if it is up tot he new majority, their trial lawyer friends will have a whole new pool of clients to flock to, and a whole new avenue to clog American courts.
Thank god you're here to protect us from warrants, Chris. Really. Where would we be without you?

In his defense, immunity for these guys is especially important to Chris, because...well, AT&T owns him.


  1. You seem to be suggesting that donations are determining Cannon's position on this, but that the idea that trial lawyer money is influencing the Democratic position is preposterous. I don't think you can have it both ways, especially since telecom donations are divided fairly evenly between the parties, while lawyer donations are not.

  2. I'm actually suggesting that the "trial lawyer" argument isn't even really worth a response, it's so contrived and preposterous a claim, but that Chris Cannon, far from an original thinker, really has no choice but to tow the line, considering pressure from his party and from his campaign donors. I'm also suggesting that he thinks Utahns are dense enough to buy into it. I'm suggesting that Utahn's are intelligent enough to see through this, and remain focused on the reality of the issue, which is the protection of our civil-rights against the wishes of an over-reaching administration.

    You also assert that telecom donations are equal between the parties. Telecom's generally shift with the winds of political power, indeed, but there is evidence that they are bankrolling, or have at least made promises to bankroll, this FISA fight through Republican campaign coffers. For Chris Cannon specifically, they are his second largest donor, should we be so foolish as to not suspect an allegiance there? Can we not then assume he may not be considering the basic rights of Utahn's when he speaks or writes these words, but the rather the interests of his leaders in Washington, and the companies that have helped him get elected?