View Article  Dick Morris: Spencer TV Ad "On Target"
Morris said Spencer's criticisms of Clinton were "on target" and he described in detail how she weakened the Patriot Act.
"After the Democrats had demonstrated their muscle by showing that they could hold off cloture on the anti-terrorist legislation, the administration and its allies realized they'd have to compromise, and agreed to changes watering down the act. Thus, Hillary joined almost everyone else in eventually voting for renewal, after she'd succeeded in weakening its protections."
Morris also described how the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping prevented a terrorist plot against the Brooklyn Bridge.
"The NSA trolls through millions of phone calls and asks its sophisticated computers to discern patterns that might be suspicious. Apparently, the words "Brooklyn Bridge" (which must not translate well into Arabic) surfaced in one call, and that was enough to alert Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to flood the bridge with cops."
Clinton described U.S. surveillance against terrorism as a "fishing expedition."
"The government is seeking to ensure the lives and safety of all Americans, including our peace of mind ... Rather than take the NSA and FBI to task for doing too much, why not praise them for finally doing enough?"
Spencer stood by the television commercial (it's been additionally supported by an RNC web ad on the same vote).
He refuted Clinton's claims against the Patriot Act.
"I believe the USA Patriot Act ensures that Americans will be both "safe and free" during the war on terror.  Your failure to articulate support for those wiretapping provisions presently being utilized -- effectively -- by the National Security Agency (NSA) is your way of playing politics with national security."
As the Republican and Conservative designee for U.S. Senate, Spencer also called on Senator Clinton to clarify her stands on multiple issues in a public debate.
To view both recent television commercials by Spencer for U.S. Senate, please go to Spencer for U.S. Senate at
View Article  Spencer Calls For Answers From Senator Clinton





John Spencer, the Republican – Conservative candidate for U.S. Senate, today released an open letter to Senator Hillary Clinton. In the letter Spencer offered to meet in a debate so that Senator Clinton could explain to the voters where she stands on the “Patriot Act”.


Below is the complete text of the letter:



August 22, 2006




Dear Senator Clinton,


If you want a dialogue on the issues, I suggest we sit down in a public forum and debate.  You question my accuracy and my intent, yet you're not accountable for your past statements.  We need to sit down together and openly discuss these issues to settle this matter, once and for all.


I have many questions and so do many New Yorkers.


Please explain the following to me:

  • The Associated Press said "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday called President Bush's explanations for eavesdropping on domestic telephone calls "strange" and "far-fetched," launching a blistering attack on the White House ahead of the president's State of the Union address." -- (1/25/06)
  • Despite the fact NSA's terrorist surveillance stopped an Al Qaeda plan to blow up the BrooklynBridge, Senator Clinton still attacked it in fundraising letters to the far left-wing as '"a secret program that spies on Americans." -- (12/30/05)

I have also re-read your statement on December 16, 2005 on the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act many times, including your other statements on national security.


Your actions on the floor of the U.S. Senate betrayed the mission of the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping:


On December 16, 2005, you opposed a Cloture Motion that would have ended a filibuster against H.R. 3199 (USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005).


The Cloture Motion required three fifths (3/5) of the U.S. Senate to end this delay in reauthorizing the Patriot Act.  The vote was only 52-47, so you had a direct hand in delaying the Patriot Act's re-passage.  In explaining your support of the Patriot Act filibuster, your statement detailed clear opposition to the backbone of the wiretap provisions within the Patriot Act and included your opposition to the NSA wiretapping.


You seek to undermine the ability of law enforcement officials to conduct the war on terror, all in a political play to fear.  You're playing politics on national security, an unhelpful trend in Congress these days.  Your lack of conviction on the issue of surveillance demonstrates how little leadership you possess in the U.S. Senate. You can't decide whether to emulate Ned Lamont or U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman -- and New Yorkers have a right to know.


Surveillance is not a "government fishing expedition" -- as you described when you attempted to scuttle the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that night.


And don't tell me a willful attempt to filibuster on this issue and delay its passage by three months, with objections to the heart of the legislation's goals, isn't an attempt to scuttle national security for a politically partisan end.  We're at war, Senator Clinton, but you're too consumed with 2008 to balance your priorities.


The government is seeking to ensure the lives and safety of all Americans, including our peace of mind.  Why must you prey on the radical fears of extreme civil libertarians whose mistrust of public institutions and authority has too often been accompanied with a counter-productive level of anarchy?  Rather than take the NSA and FBI to task for doing too much, why not praise them for finally doing enough?  It seems as though a certain cross-section of counter-culturalists are always unhappy -- and you're playing to every single one of them for the 2008 national election.


I believe the USA Patriot Act ensures that Americans will be both "safe and free" during the war on terror.  Your failure to articulate support for those wiretapping provisions presently being utilized -- effectively -- by the National Security Agency (NSA) is your way of playing politics with national security.


You described Congress as proceeding in "haste".  Does this mean you regret voting for the original Patriot Act?


You described the USA Patriot Act as a "risk" to our "Constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties".


What's more of a risk, violent terrorist acts or a necessary/temporary sacrifice during this war on terror?


The Patriot Act already included "four year sunset" provisions.  Can you please explain to me why you feel the need to re-vote on this law every six months?  You also wanted to delay re-passage of this law by three months.  That's the equivalent of a three month filibuster, one where you would have spoken out of both sides of your mouth to millions every day to every news outlet -- all in preparation for 2008.


Your enemies are the opponents in 2008, not the Islamic fascists threatening to violently impact our way of life.


The following statement by you on December 16, 2005 also has disturbed me and many patriotic Americans:


"Like all Americans, I am troubled by recent reports that the President signed an order in 2002 that authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic spying on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite legal prohibitions against such activity."


You don't speak for all Americans and it is wrong of you to mischaracterize American sentiment on these life-threatening issues.  The NSA has an aim to protect Americans, to prevent violence against Americans and it's wrong of you to undermine this patriotic organization.  We should be thanking the NSA and the FBI for their diligent work to prevent violent terrorist plots.


I won't join with you in playing to people's fears and I believe most Americans support all the measures being put forth by our government to protect our citizens.






John D. Spencer