From Stark
U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, voted in favor of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, despite complaints that it gives the government too much access to online communications between citizens.
The Guardian summarizes the c0mplaints about the bill here.
The Obama Administration has threatened a veto. AP reports, via the Chicago Sun-Times.
In a press release, Larsen indicated that he shares some of the concerns about the bill, and will continue to work to improve it as the House and Senate work out a compromise version.
Here is the bill passed by the House.
Here is Larsen’s press release:
WASHINGTON—Rep. Rick Larsen, WA-02, issued the following statement today after voting for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.
“From personal communication on Facebook and Twitter to banking and e-commerce, a huge part of our lives are spent online,” Larsen said. “We must make sure that our personal data and communications are protected from foreign and domestic hackers.”
“Our nation’s cyber infrastructure is under a constant barrage of attacks. This legislation is designed to improve the sharing of information between the government and private sector so that these attacks can be better identified and protected against. The more closely the government and private sector work together to combat threats, the safer our personal data and nation will be.
“I am deeply concerned about protecting personal information from improper access and misuse. I sought to make sure that personal information shared between companies and government is kept to a minimum and with the strongest safeguards in place to protect personal privacy. I will continue working to strengthen those protections as the House and Senate negotiate a final bill.”
End press release
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Ben Franklin
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Larsen sells out once again. Hey Democrats when are you going to wake up and replace this guy?
The bill does contain a big loophole in that the Federal government is free to use information in unspecified ways as long as one of those ways has something to do with National Security.
Now who could argue against National Security?
it’s already brought us such great advances as extraordinary rendition,
indefinite detention and the wholesale eavesdropping by Bushies on American soldiers loving-up their wives over the phone from Iraq.
We had torture guys in Libya, Egypt and Yemen and even took a Canadian national away by mistake for a couple of years of National Security Intelligence gathering.
So here Larsen has performed the correct function in rubber-stamping a law which might actually help do what he says it will as long as National Security doesn’t get in the way.
One thing more to add to the list on INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY this Tuesday, May 1.
This is the reason why I don’t vote for Larson, and why I’m embarrassed about being a democrat.
Hard to imagine anyone having less backbone than my second husband.
I feel like I need a shower.
No peeking.
I am very disappointed in Larsen’s vote on this issue AND his non-explanation above. I called his office today to let him know.
Larsen has sunk to the level of a Maria Cantwell and I’m sorry I voted for them both. At least it got Herald coverage, unlike when 80 some left wing protestors showed up to protest him at his town hall style meeting, his office called the cops who came to remove the protestors and the paper did’t even cover it.
When it all got exposed by Wiki-Leaks, the temporary safety purchased for essential Liberty, proves the money can’t buy a brain n Congress.
Like those weapons of mass distruction, 19 boxknifes, on sale at K-Mart.
And Harry Truman writes, December 22, 1963;
“..For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about “Yankee imperialism,” “exploitive capitalism,” “war-mongering,” “monopolists,” in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it…”
Well I guess the only way to dump this sell out is to put the republican in there for two years. All of you Democrats who have had it with the party leaders not holding the likes of Larsen and Cantwell to task you need to get rid of the bench warmers and vote for the opposition.
Excuse me while I throw up and cast my vote to run Larsen out of DC.
That, or the option to write-in a name remains.
Vote for Camille!
Sorry Tychon. We have just experienced a Gerrymandering of our state by which they sweetened up almost all the districts, to make each incumbent much more safe and therefore less accountable.
Yet you support the incumbent who has betrayed his base time and time again. What does that make you? You might considered speaking out against the gerrymandering and the incumbent. No as so many others will never challenge incumbents like Larsen or Cantwell probably because you in fear of damaging your own personal ambitions perhaps. The age of the Statesmen are all but gone because of the cowardice of the party members and leadership in challenging their own representatives. People “with a set of something” please step up.
The State Party has become nothing more then a club for opportunists. I would challenge who are not entrenched to to rally together and forbid the party leadership from herding them like sheep as they have for decades. The DLC, DSCC and the DNC are broken almost as bad as their republican counterparts.
Are you going to continue to be part of the problem or become part of the solution?
Tychon, did you not notice that in 2010, the Whatcom Democrats did NOT endorse Rick Larsen, and in fact TWO alternate Democrat candidates ran against him.
If I thought it would do any good, I would join John Milem in suing the state to put in the Milem map, which actually made geographically sensible districts that were balanced, therefore mandating that elected officials would need to do a lot more listening and earning of trust.
Oh, so someone else must have success before you will stand up. This is the problem with many Democrats is it not?
BTW those two Democrats had virtually no money or support from the party members. Plus many who siad they would back those two were afraid to come out against Larsen. So as long as you and others can’t seem to step up to the plate I sugest you quit defending the likes of these corporate owned reps. DLC, New Dems Dem 1%’ers they are all sell out. Indecently isn’t Rudermann a DLC dem? Do you support her? if so why? Are you striving to join the corporate club? Sorry they wont have you so don’t waste you time.
I remember, Tychon.
Yes Camille. Larsen almost lost in the general because his conservacrat positioning on issues like war and healthcare pissed off many in the party who actually saw through his bull. Plus Koster had a great deal of propaganda spewing from his campaign disguising his inability to represent the people and suck up to the GOP. Koster is frankly nuts in my opinion.
When we have candidates who we know will represent the people and not the lobbyists like Larry and Dianna in 2008 we should support them. Not toss them aside for the likes of Larsen and Cantwell.
Tychon,
1. to be very clear : Suzan Delbene is the DLC candidate that Larsen endorsed and will caucus with the corporate Dem caucus in DC if elected. Laura Ruderman was a DFA supported candidate when she ran for state office. Laura Ruderman and Darcy Burner would caucus with the progressive caucus if elected.
2. “the probelm with many Democrats” is the same for many Republicans too. Stupidity is bipartisan.
3. Many people did not fully back the alternate Dems because they started too late and too disorganizedly. If either had committed to doing it a half year earlier, they would have had massively more support and a possible shot at it. There was simply not enough time to build unknown candidates into superstars before the primary.
4. Don’t presume that because I discuss the facts or impressions about an issue that I support or oppose that issue or candidate. I like for viewpoints to be out in the open for review.
Tychon,
“1. to be very clear : Suzan Delbene is the DLC candidate that Larsen endorsed and will caucus with the corporate Dem caucus in DC if elected. Laura Ruderman was a DFA supported candidate when she ran for state office. Laura Ruderman and Darcy Burner would caucus with the progressive caucus if elected.”
I hope this is true. I would also expect you and other Democrats to expose the “Fix” that the party leaders have been working on to make Delbene the party choice and demand that they resign for their treachery to circumvent the party process. These New Democrat/past DLC’ers are a disgrace!
Delbene has done poorly at all the Q&A’s compared to the others and those who are not in denial know it.
2. “the probelm with many Democrats” is the same for many Republicans too. Stupidity is bipartisan.”
As well as cowardice, Arrogance and denial.
3.” Many people did not fully back the alternate Dems because they started too late and too disorganizedly. If either had committed to doing it a half year earlier, they would have had massively more support and a possible shot at it. There was simply not enough time to build unknown candidates into superstars before the primary.”
Nonsense on this one! It is your own hubris in this statement. You, who jumped races at the last minute. You might want to check yourself instead of critiquing other campaigns. Besides the issue is Larsen being a lousy Rep. Not those who would stand against him to better our representation. Tactically it is better to lose a fight sometimes and increase the chances of a much better legislator in the next 2 year cycle instead of bleeding to death slowly at the hand of the likes of Larsen.
“4. Don’t presume that because I discuss the facts or impressions about an issue that I support or oppose that issue or candidate. I like for viewpoints to be out in the open for review.”
Good for you but you might want to bring all the facts to the topic of your impressions instead of trying to spin for some kind of satisfaction to quell your sense of political astuteness or maybe some kind of pointless ego driven histrionics.
Out in the open for review requires more then you just saying it.
I know you fancy yourself a political junky and such but I am more interested in progress not regress.
I digress , I guess what I would like to see more of, is SPINE instead of SPIN. How about you?
Tychon says “…It is your own hubris in this statement. You, who jumped races at the last minute. You might want to check yourself instead of critiquing other campaigns…”
Elections boil down to matchups and a comparison choice for the voters between the final 2 applicants in November. This guy or that guy. I spent over a year shoring up support in a matchup for me versus Dale Brandland. Then it was he who jumped out, and then Ericksen who jumped to that seat. Those two jumps changed the landscape. There was another candidate who was scheduled to run as the right matchup against Doug Ericksen, and that was never myself. I responded to the first 2 jumps by moving one seat over myself. The only one who didn’t move over one space was the guy who got 47% against Overstreet by staying put.
My original point about the Larsen competitors still stands. A long, deep campaign is better. You and i disagree whether it’s a good idea to run a campaign for message value rather than lining up a shot that might hit bullseye.
Wrong again. You keep missing the target. It’s not about you. It’s about building a coalition on candidates that will represent the 99% not play the politician game. Again you fancy yourself as a political wise man yet you have virtually no success rate that supports that. Please your insights are flawed and self serving. But please don’t let the little people stand in your way.
“You and i disagree whether it’s a good idea to run a campaign for message value rather than lining up a shot that might hit bullseye.” Ah yes the words in the mouth routine. You call my point as messaging which is totally ridiculous . I see winning for the public as a strategy not taking ill thought out pot shots to maybe hit a Bulls-eye. That’s where do get you campaign ideas ? On the back of a cereal box? A long deep campaign of nothing is still nothing. Strategy wins and unfortunately the Republicans came up with a beauty.
Tychon, this topic was supposed to be about Rick Larsen, but since nobody but you and me are still talking :
First, if you can’t get a guy elected, it doesn’t matter how right you were. See Nader 2000, See Kucinich 2004, See Kalb 2010. There is a system. You must change it or infiltrate it. Ignoring the rules and hoping for the best does neither.
As for your comment “you fancy yourself as a political wise man yet you have virtually no success rate that supports that”, you clearly don’t know my political record. I have been the chief or a key strategist in a county levy campaign that won against all odds, a local initiative that landslided, as cheif strategist for an interest group who changed the result on who is currently the Premiere (governor) of BC Canada. I have twice been among the 100 or so people sent from WA state to the party national convention (an elected position distilled from 9000 participants in 2008, along the way winning the county caucus as top vote getter with 320 votes out of 360 ballots cast), and I have worked as organizer nationally online and physically in 5 states on the winning side of 2 presidential primary battles. In 2010, i won the party officers nomination vote at 68% and got 62% of the rank and file vote of the county party membership, before being surpassed by the guy who got 47% in November. So, sure, I haven’t been elected to a public office yet, but I certainly offer an informed opinion about political matters.
I know your record and I also know your standing. I have also watched you get smacked down on several occasions. You have never held state or national political office.(true) You are exaggerating your qualifications again. As usual you are taking way too much credit for yourself when there were so many others working hard in the groups that you point out. Again it’s not about you. Your strategy’s have been mediocre to say the least.
You embellish yourself in a such grandiose manner it’s almost embarrassing.
As for getting 68% of the party officers nomination. That’s funny. Why not tell the readers here how many actual votes that was? LOL Maybe 68 people who many are low information voters. Hmm not so impressive.
I will leave you with these thoughts. We have a Congress that recently reached a new low of 9% approval. We have a con-man as the Dem rep in the 2nd congressional voting for crap like CISPA. You can go far if you are great at slinging the bull like him.
No, I have the type pegged. Probably have pictures of high profile leaders shaking hands all over the dining room wall.
I might agree with you on many things to be sure but you are only going to go so far until you really figure out how to win by changing the rules as the oligarchy has. You will never get anything going how you are going about it.
Nader, Kucinich, Kalb… Kalb? Nice compliment putting him in such esteem company. They all got screwed by the Democratic Party leadership. Right Now you have guys out there like Van Jones who are going to get the same treatment from the Corporate Democrats.
Again you will not be part of that club. If you are smart you don’t want to be. You better find other ways to make the country a better place if that’s what you want but I think you are just another one who would like to get in on the political Titanic. Better hurry up! The clock is ticking.
I don’t think I could ever vote for you because I see you as part of the problem not the solution. This country needs real representation and not these ego driven sell -outs we have nowadays.
BTW if you can’t get the “right person” elected you might as well elect a bar of soap because that’s all you will ever get for representation.
RM, I don’t always agree with you, but at least you don’t hide behind a anonymous name…especially one so stupidly arrogant as this pontificator Tychon….defined as accurate? What a misnomer of a handle for someone who strays so far from accuracy….Is this Shaun come from the cyber grave?
Richard, check your “facts” Ruderman has a long history with DLC . Burner is the true progressive.
Hank
You should remember that one persons point of view might affect more people then that person associates with the public.
So again it’s not about me! It’s about the people,issues and not Hanks little snipe.
Hank your hypocrisy is hilarious by your own use of ‘Hank” to maintain your anonymity. Kind of speaks for it’s self.
The arrogance see here is RM and now you Hank. Maybe someday we will have a chance to meet away from the lists and possibly expose each others arrogance. I am looking forward to it.
Of course Hue Beattie is correct. Well read and researched as usual. Hue has always tried to do his best for the people not for himself unlike others in the local party.
So Richard and Hank please consider this round finished but please be sure if you dish it Up I hope you can stand the heat. Hank You sound more like a Mark to me. But I really DGAS.
What was that about pork chops?
“…..not about me…”. And yet your posts, like your dressing down of Richard, are full of personal insults. You belittle and demean in nearly every sentence. You use a name that is defined as “accurate” that carries with it the assertion only you know what that is. You call me a hypocrite for using my own nick name (it’sreally Henry), while you hide behind your moniker. You threaten to get nastier if challenged. You attempt to expose those with monikers. Ad nauseum. So it is hard to believe this is not about you, with your attempts to belittle, demean and insult. All having nothing to do with the subject. I can take the heat of being disagreed with. I chafe at the arrogance displayed by your actions coupled with their hypocrisy. So I will give you a wide berth from now on, because I think you offer nothing. Hope you enjoy being a big man on the blog and talking to no one–at least not me.
I’m not anonymous, I’m using my nick-name!
A nick name like Hank for Henry is common, Henry Fonda was known as Hank. He was still Heny Fonda and everyone knew that. Same for my grandson.
I know you would like to goad a last name. I might do that if I decide to get more serious; but from what I can tell of the Herald website in general, one only opens themselves to personal hostility on a nauseating scale. I would never be able to read the comments if I ever wrote a letter to the editor. It is really creepy in the commenting section and something weird is going on there, apparently from the overseer on down.
But this is all off topic and I apologize for responding to comments about other than the topic. Some appear to have an ad hominem permit, but I don’t know where to apply for that.
Thanks for the wide berth Hanky (Henry) as you have shown nothing but sniping. I challenge the bull that gets spewed on the list and you can’t handle it .
Fine ignore me on the list but please in a public forum don’t run to “Richard the Great’s” aid. He is constantly condescending to many of us with out a dime to back it up.
Run Along now Sonny! <This is for you since you are butting in to soemthing between RM and I.
Do you read your own posts? Nothing but snipe. It is also an open forum and commenting on the load of ad hominem you spew liberally is apparently all the feedback you are searching for. I do now know your other monikers over in the creepy comments section. You use the phrase”run along sonny” too often and you are the only one who does. So that is all you get troll. I will run along now, because like you and about you I DGAS.