@ Fool: I think you need to look up "disingenuous" in the dictionary. You really think that when people like me talk about the importance of Supreme Court appointments and veto-proof majorities, we're being sly, operating from ulterior motive? That's delusional.

Also: curtly dissing the people you disagree with as liars and "blatherers" isn't helpful or interesting. I'm one of those people, and whether I'm ultimately correct or incorrect, I'm not being dishonest, and I'm pretty sure I'm not "blathering." Don't be a prick.

@ Glenn:

The Democrats are no more responsible for

Bush's radicalism than I am for the ever more

divisive content of your columns.

Great analogy. How silly of me to think that Democrats

have any responsibility for the laws that are passed

or the investigation that don't occur or the

filibusters that don't happen. Poor little helpless

creatures - what can they do about any of it?

In my opinion your columns are beginning to have

a consistent theme of encouraging the lefties to

fraction off from a unified Democratic party a

la Nader, etc.

Yes, you uncovered my grand plan - to encourage

lefties to form a third party. I just haven't unveiled

my plan yet because . . . well, there must be some

reason.

I know there are people who want to read blogs or

pundits who are attached to one of the parties and

never criticize that party no matter what they do.

There are many blogs like that around the Internet.

This is not one of them, so if that's the kind of

commentary you like, you shouldn't look for it here.

This isn't the DNC.

Instead of taking snarky pot-shots at the easiest targets (if this reassures you, Glenn: I don't think many of your readers really suspect that you're a secret agent working for the Green Party), why don't you engage in a respectful way with the question so many commenters are raising here: what positive action do you actually recommend? You're speaking at YearlyKos, aren't you? Implicitly, you don't consider yourself one of these ineffectual pundits who's content to merely "call the game." What are some of the affirmative steps that your readers can take to check the spineless minority within the Democratic Party that approved this FISA bill?

(Also: am I wrong to call this a minority position within the Democratic camp? Am I reading the votes incorrectly?)

"I said 'disingenuous' for at least two reasons:

1)Its hard to believe that anyone posting here is so dumb that they really think 'veto-proof' majorities, which have rarely existed, are necessary to have any power in our system. But I'll take your word for it that you are ignorant rather than disingenuous.

2) Because despite the fact that Glenn already pointed out that the Democrats could always filibuster just like the Republican minority has been doing, people are still logging on here and arguing that the Democrats were powerless to stop the new FISA law."

But you're the one, here as in your earlier comment, who's being disingenuous!

I don't know what you're talking about or responding to with your second-point, but if this point is really in debate, I'll agree with you that the Dems have the filibuster, should have used it here, and were not "powerless to stop the new FISA law." (What is this whole comment thread about, anyway? Why do you think we're all so pissed off?)

As to the first: nobody here has argued that "'veto-proof' majorities . . . are necessary to have any power in our system." That would be a daffy thing to say, and the commenters, so far as I've noticed, aren't saying it on this thread. (Again, then, I agree with you: it is "hard to believe" that everyone is as "dumb" as you're imagining them to be.)

It is not, however, ignorant or crazy to think that the Democrats, in 2008, might be able to build one of these transient veto-proof majorities. Nor is it hopelessly ignorant to think that this plausible veto-proof majority could prevent a Republican president from doing some serious harm -- or permit a Restoration Congress to throttle needed legislation through.

On the contrary, the latest polling data (and common sense) suggests that the Democratic landslide in '08 will dwarf what happened in '06. (I usually expect the worst, and am rarely disappointed . . . but even I expect a historic beat-down next year. It's not like I'll be dancing in the streets when that happens; the world's already gone to hell in a handbasket, as far as I'm concerned, and the Democratic Party has already failed the historic test that the Bush regime posed. My disillusionment and disgust will be permanent, I think.) I'm worried, though, about what will happen if, by some weird chance, a Republican like Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani is elected.

And by the way, this veto-proof majority would come, just like the Dems' win in 2006, from wins in states like Missouri, Montana, and my own state of Iowa. I'd be pissed if Heath Schuler were my Congressman (mine is Dave Loebsack, who voted against this bill) -- but it's still better, in a hardcore right-wing district, to have a conservative Democrat than someone who will caucus with the Republicans.

You're letting your anger get the best of you, Fool, which is understandable -- but why do you have to be so insulting to the other people on this forum? I'm getting "Republicrat" flashbacks. How do you think you'll win an entore country over to your grand third-party vision if you're spewing condescension and vitriol at the readers of Glenn Greenwald's blog, for God's sake? Not everybody who fails to see things your way is ignorant, disingenuous, or stupid.

PS: A typo in my last post is bothering me. That should be "some ulterior motive."

entIre country. Not "entore."