Paul Dirks said, "They think it will help Obama in the general election if this passed now and was a non-issue by August. Unfortunately they are probably correct."

No they're not. The ACLU hired Mark Mellman to do a poll for them on FISA and he found that large majorities of voters are opposed to the contents of this bill. That's the same Mark Mellman who polls for Hoyer, Barrow, and Reid.

Large majorities oppose warrantless wiretaps. And they oppose telecom immunity. How it helps Obama to cave in on a matter of principle in order to take the minority position on the same side as the least popular president in history escapes me.

Hey Obama - nice little fundraising operation you got there......wouldn't want anything to happen to it now, would we? Well, I'm one donor who you can cross off the list. Don't bother calling me Barry -- I'll call you.

Well, I guess you've inspired some people with your rhetoric. But you haven't done much for me. When I voted for you recently, I was just voting against Hillary.

I absolutely will NOT donate to you, you coward.

I'm also seriously considering not voting for you, Barry, although I admit you've got me between a rock and hard place on that one.

Way to go Barry. We've been watching you and you failed.

105 Congressional Democrats Are Pussies

You know it. I know. The Republicans sure know it and laugh about it all the time. Pathetic. Utterly and totally pathetic.

The political context makes this an act of sheer cowardice:

1) The Democrats "control" Congress.

2) Bush is the most unpopular president in history and broke laws.

3) By huge majorities, voters of all parties opposed the contents of this bill.

But the pussies in the Democratic party, including the absolutely embarassing Nancy Pelosi, voted for it anyway.

I've tried to call several offices and I get busy signals at every one. If they pass this, then they are completely fucking worthless.

I'm a realist about "realism". I'm cool with some wheeling and dealing for the greater good, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Realism in the service of a great principle is one thing. But if war crimes and fundamental rights aren't where you draw the line, then you simply don't have a line.

Supporting Barrow is not the worst thing in the world but there's nothing good about it. I voted for Obama over Hillary but only because I was voting against Hillary because of her refusal to even say the right thing about Iraq. But I'm not real enthusiastic about Obama. I want to see the beef and so far I haven't seen it. I wouldn't care as much about Obama helping Barrow if he had taken a strong line publicly about FISA but he hasn't done that either.

Great war crimes were committed in this country by our highest leaders. There is a crime scene in Iraq with a million dead bodies and another in the U.S. with 4000 bodies and tens of thousands maimed. If I don't hear people like Obama speaking in a way that comports with that reality, then it just means we're still stuck in the brainwash zone.

I want out.

USA999said, "We have urgent need of a national debate on how we have permitted a political class so opposed to American principles and values to rise to positions of power in the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court."

Hear, hear! The first step? The pathetically weak Democratic "leadership" need to get off their careerist asses and start standing up for basic American values unambiguously.

Obama? I'm still watching you and I still haven't seen much.

The current Republican party has nothing to do with traditional conservative political theory but is nothing more than a mindless expression of its leaders' authoritarian personality defects. They managed to get so extreme in large part because 1) the Democratic opposition has been weak for the last 30 years and 2) the MSM has abdicated its watchdog responsibility when it comes to Republicans (but not Democrats).

Starting with Reagan the Republican activists found that there were no checks on what they said or did. The result was a political bidding war within the Republican party to see who could outdo the other with increasingly extreme rhetoric unfounded in any principle or any empirical policy basis. Since there was nothing to stop anyone from upping the ante, we are where we are today.