So it seems that one Senator, out of one hundred, can read and understand the simple words of the constitution. As I wrote in the previous thread, FISA itself is plainly unconstitutional, little more than the retroactive immunity of its day. The fact is, that ALL spying on citizens by the government, without a warrant, will inevitably be abused, and should never be accepted in a free society. Terrorism, communism, or whatever, the ability and tendency of governments to invent and/or exaggerate threats to expand and cement their own power is just a plain fact, and setting aside the centuries of this being proven, every time, is either dumb or deliberate. End of story.

As Glenn wrote, our system of checks and balances was not airy-fairy idealism, but simply the grim recognition of human failings.

As the very existence of FISA shows, power, once granted, is never given up, nor is it ever satisfied.

There is not one example, throughout history, of how such despotic overreaching ever saved anybody from the "threats" it was pretending to diminish, and literally infinite examples of how such authoritarian measures accomplished only what they were meant to: stifle dissent, silence political opponents, and extinguish freedom.

Trust us?

That's what they all say.

Steven Rockford, thanks for you excellent analysis of the right's progression to its current state.

I would only differ in adding that they've really reached stage four:

I've got mine, and now I'm taking yours, and if you don't like it, off to the gulag.

Clearly, the recognition had already set in by 2000 that they could no longer sell any of their policies to the country without lying about them; "compassionate conservative," the majority of the tax relief goes to the bottom half," "humble foreign policy," and on and on.

By 2004, they had to add stifling dissent, external threats, and voter disenfranchisement to the mix.

Now, they are so used to getting their way, so legally compromised, morally exposed, and tainted with disaster, deceit, and history's irredeembale judgement, that they really have nothing left to lose. That's what I worry about.

The spying, the signing statements, the torture, the destruction of the justice system and complete politicization of the military, and really all government agencies; they are, intermittently, trying to sell dictatorship to a gullibe few while establishing it in fact for the rest of us.

Care to guess what stage five is?

Jim, I've noticed this phenonemon as well. There is an ad for a charitable organization that plays on KPOJ, which is the Air America affiliate here in Portland. It asks for help for "hardworking families in YOUR community, who need a hand up, not a hand out." Therefore, even a lefty audience in a liberal community must be reassured that those needing help aren't lazy, grabby, or too far away to matter. The framing of poverty as a personal fault is that pervasive.

With all basic needs, from housing and food to gasoline and healthcare, skyrocketing far faster than wages, and jobs offer less security than ever, poverty ought to be everyone's concern, but caring for one's fellow citizens is now an unaffordable luxury.

Sad.

It is remarkable, but unsurprising, that we have come to this pass, and in such a short time. After Watergate, the Church committee hearings were essentially the last gasp of constitutional checks and balances, and the last time that core principles were able to eclipse personalities in the public discourse.

I believe the problem lies with the media, and first manifested itself in the Iran/Contra hearings. Here, laws were broken, enemies aided, sensitive, expensive government property stolen and sold, multiple officials from the president on down lied repeatedly to congress and the public, and an illegal war funded, and the Media mooned over how manly Ollie North looked in his uniform. Later, when a defeated, unpopular president handed out Christmas pardons, effectively whitewashing the whole sordid mess, Lawrence Walsh, the special prosecutor, forcefully condemned the whole thing, to a collective yawn. And the Media talked about Hillary's hair.

Throughout the Clinton era, Clinton was hounded relentlessly, but never over anything substantive; why talk about boring old domestic spying and suspiciously timed bombings, when pizzas, interns, and "murders" are fascinating and boosts the ratings? Who cares about broken promises, or even Republican blather about "rule of law," when there's a cigar involved?

The symbiotic relationship of the media conglomerates and the powerful is now well cemented. No more Nixonian "wars" on the nattering nabobs; instead, government and media have crawled into bed for a permanent and satisfying orgy of mutual satisfaction. It is an endless loop of deregulation rewarded by acquiescence, money washing back and forth from campaigns to television stations, and endless cheap and uncontroversial nonsense to fill the airtime for the people who must pay for it all and endure its depredations.

Once the fourth estate is coopted, the others must follow, and they have.

Shooter, I believe that I was referring to "after" the Church hearings, leaving aside what came before. I recall numerous debates about constitutional issues that preceded that era, and none since. Work on your reading comprehension, please.

Kovie, I don't know the answer to your question, but have been thinking that another reason for Reid's timing is related to what Sam Seder (a great Air America host) called the "one cheek sneak." That is, the "airing" of stinky but unavoidable news on a day in which media attention is sure to be otherwise occupied, or failing that, relatively unnoticed. So, either pick a Friday afternoon, or wait for a Britney Spears meltdown. In the unlikely event that neither is available, something like Super Tuesday fits the bill perfectly. Let 'er rip.