Thank You, Claire McCaskill

I've not been hesitant to criticize our junior Senator when she's voted as a Republican would. But I'm not going to bring up the past - Senator McCaskill stood up and acted like a Democrat yesterday. When the Republicans counted on her to buckle and give the telecoms immunity for their violation of citizens' privacy, she did the right thing.

Thank you, Senator McCaskill.

Welcome back to the Democratic Party.

Telecom Immunity - McCaskill Fooled Again

Remember when Claire "WWJTD?" McCaskill rushed along with the Senate Republicans to approve an extension for the NSA's spying? Remember how her excuse was that it was sooooo important that the NSA continue its spying on the bad guys that we had to do something, anything, quick, even if it meant allowing the NSA to spy on ordinary Americans?

Flash forward to the recent debate on retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that traded their customers' privacy for government contracts. McCaskill joined with those who threatened to vote Republican again (WWJTD?), forcing a real Democrat (Chris Dodd, God bless him) to threaten a fillibuster. The simplistic argument in favor of telecom immunity is that the companies should not be exposed to harm for patriotically going along with government requests.

Yesterday, we saw just how badly McCaskill had been fooled.

The Feds care so little about the service that they don't even pay their bills, an those "patriotic telecom companies" have been treating our over-protective spy agencies like credit-risky teenagers - dropping their services when they start falling behind on payments.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal and intelligence investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.

It's gut check time for McCaskill. There's a lot riding on this retroactive telecom immunity issue, and, so far, she's on the wrong side of it. Did she spend all that time and all that money just so she could go to Washington and behave like Jim Talent? Did she really ask all of us who supported her campaign financially and with our volunteer hours to elect a stealth Republican?

Worse yet, did we support a fool? Or were we the fools?

Speculation on Forsee

Gary Forsee was forced out of the CEO position at Sprint Nextel this week, and handed parting gifts of around $55 million. My question is "why now"? I mean, the stock's up over his four years, and they did it right before the opening of the Sprint Center - an occasion where they could have projected an image of strength and stability instead of having to scurry around to find someone to cut the ribbon. Even if they thought he wasn't doing a good job, the timing was poor and odd.

Could the answer be found in Washington?

This past week, the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committee approved some changes to the FISA, and one of the bones of contention is whether Congress will give telecom companies secrecy and immunity for their cooperation with the people who want to spy on Americans. Could it be that Forsee lost his job because he allowed the NSA to spy on Sprint customers? Could it be that in the boardrooms of Sprint, the "powers that be" canned him not because of mediocre performance (they should be accustomed to that), but because he violated the privacy of Sprint customers - a breach of faith that could expose the company to bankrupting lawsuits and a PR nightmare equivalent to Bhopal and tainted Tylenol?

Let's be clear here - I have zero evidence to support my theory, beyond the fact that Sprint chose an awkward time to fire its leader, and that time coincides with the possibility that the American public might find out who has been allowing the Bush administration to listen to its calls. And that $55 million would sure buy him a nice place in Costa Rica . . .