Why Is Bush Suddenly Ready to Make a Deal on FISA? Ask the House Democrats

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 1:16 PM on April 1, 2008.

Much to everyone’s surprise, House Democrats simply wouldn’t budge a month ago when the Bush administration demanded that Congress pass a permanent “Protect America Act” — with retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. The law expired, the president threw a fit, and lawmakers broke for a two-week spring recess.

Throughout the debate, especially after the PAA expired, the White House frequently and publicly emphasized a two-word message to Democratic leaders on the Hill: No Compromise. The House would pass exactly what the administration wanted, and no substitutes would be accepted. All the while, the Bush gang would fudge the facts, question Dems’ patriotism, and do their level best to scare the bejeezus out of the public.

And House Dems still wouldn’t back down. In an even more startling surprise, the White House is now willing to at least talk about bipartisan cooperation. (I’m going to work under the assumption that this is not an April Fool’s joke.)

The White House, seeking to break a months-long standoff, has signaled to Democratic lawmakers it is open to negotiation over a proposal to expand government spy powers, according to officials familiar with the conversations. […]

Over the two-week spring recess, administration officials contacted Democratic leaders to suggest they were open to compromise on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. “We definitely want to get it done,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. “We’ve had some initial conversations with Congress about the need to get FISA reform done quickly.” He added that Mr. Bush still prefers the Senate measure, which the White House negotiated with Senate Democrats. […]

The White House’s more conciliatory posture reflects a recognition that the Bush administration’s leverage on national-security matters has slipped since this past summer, a top Republican congressional aide said. “There’s a recognition that if they’re actually going to get a product they can support, there’s going to have to be some new level of engagement,” the aide said.

You don’t say.

And what about telecom immunity? Paul Kiel explains:

Some Dems are floating “a pared-back version of immunity,” such as limiting immunity to certain aspects of the program or capping possible damages. Talks about other aspects of the legislation, for instance concerning judicial oversight of surveillance, might come more easily.

But the reason for the White House’s new tack is pretty clear: they used every weapon at their disposal — presidential statements and press conferences, alarming letters and public appearances by the director of national intelligence and attorney general, time pressures created by the lapsing of legislation or a Congressional recess — and none of it worked. The House, after all that, still passed a bill a world away from what the administration was pushing for. It was, as the Journal points out, a strikingly different outcome from August, when the White House’s squeeze play worked to perfection.

And what prompted the White House to deign to reach out to Pelosi & Co.? One factor was clearly the notion that the administration came to believe House Dems simply weren’t going to budge. (Note to Dems: I wish you guys had realized this sooner.)

Another factor, Kiel notes, is that lawmakers had been negotiating with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, but Dems have come to realize that he’s simply not reliable.

Whatever the motivation, the White House’s sudden willingness to negotiate is a pleasant surprise and an encouraging step in the right direction. Don’t blow it, Dems.

Tagged as: bush, bush administration, fisa, democratic congress, warrantless wiretapping, telecom immunity

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.