So, if Moynihan told you to jump off a tall building, you'd consider that valid as well? You're probably just another pathetic closet case. Stay there until you get a clue. I'd say you're being an asswipe, but that might just excite you.

--Ron

<<As far as homosexuals -- even Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) saw them as sexual deviants, and our cultural embrace of that deviance as destructive.>>

So you're saying evil has to exist for good to happen? Sorry, I don't buy that. Sure, sometimes good things happen in response to bad things, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Sometimes things go backwards, and that's what happened with Helms' help. If we'd not had jerks like him in power, I believe we'd be far better off as a country, and would have made much better progress, instead of constantly battling the same old crap.

--Ron

<<This was not an act of self-flagellation on the part of Helms of course; it was an act of supreme self-indulgence, actually, but still he did it, and those who do not understand this, who feel Jesse Helms and those like him simply slowed the inevitable progress of the good and earnest and decent (liberal?) among us miss the point. The evil was already there, and it was doing its work. Over three decades, and certainly not entirely knowingly, Helms exposed it and layed it out there to be cleansed, repaired, battled and defeated.>>

I'm wondering how we get back to the rule of law. Am I right in thinking that our country does not have anyone with the capacity to bring us back to the rule of law? By capacity, I mean someone in a position to charge and bring to trial the lawbreakers, like virtually everyone associated with Bush. I don't see anyone in those positions who'd likely be willing to do so. Certainly Obama is not going to do so, he made that very plain this week with his capitulation toward the rule of men, not law.

So, my question to Glenn is, where should we look? Is an international tribunal even possible? I think that if there were one, the US would bring economic pressure to bear upon any country that would host it or sanction such a thing. I suspect even Obama would be willing to squash it.

I guess what it boils down to is that it seems hopeless. Will that ACLU and EFF suit be a possible mechanism for restoring the rule of law?

It seems to me that since we're already a nation based on the rule of men, it will take men of real character to restore us to the rule of law. That in itself seems wrong. The fact that we've gotten this far shows that there are some serious shortcomings in our constitution.

--Ron

I submit that Obama has no credibility with his vote on FISA, and doubt that he has the strength of mind or will to consistently oppose any lawless act, if it meant he has the slightest chance of losing a vote over it, according to his consultants. I do not excuse him for this vote, as there was no justification for it, and I do not find plausible that he needed to do it to win the election, quite the opposite, in fact. So no, Obama threw away any credibility he has, and I believe he has no principles other than getting elected. He's a better choice than McCain, and no 3rd party has a ghost's chance of winning, so I'm forced to vote for him, but it's definitely while holding my nose. Quite making excuses for him, none hold up.

--Ron

<<Since people insist on bringing up Obama

Obama has consistently opposed torture. Clinton and McCain have both flip-flopped on it.>>

I realize he's not specifically reversed any stand on torture. I'm saying he has no credibility on any stand, he threw it all away with his FISA vote. Also, GG made a very effective point about excusing the FISA vote is taking a stand AWAY from the rule of law. It's all part of a package. Either you're for the rule of law, or you're not. Obama chose the latter. McCain did too, of course, but we already knew that he would. Look, I still plan to vote for Obama, simply because of the Supreme Court. But I do not expect any other good to come from him as president. McCain would simply be worse, and that's the best I can say of Obama at this point.

--Ron

<<I didn't make an excuse for Obama, I made a factual statement. He has consistently opposed torture. If changes his mind at some later date, you can bash him for it.>>

Actually, the problem isn't with moral absolutism, the problem is in what defines a morality. If it's subjective morality, like that of the republicans (and the FISA obfuscators everywhere), then that is the problem, and is of a piece with "the rule of men" as opposed to the rule of law. Objective morality and a clear definition of it in most people's minds would have stopped all this nonsense in its tracks.

--Ron

<<Not all of us of course, but a conservative 40% of the population is pathologically hypocritical deluded superstitious over-consumptive greed heads who view the world in terms of moral absolutes with a certainty that is dangerous.>>

I'm tired of this point being projected upon Clinton. We don't know whether she would have voted the same way if she were the candidate or not. There simply isn't enough evidence either way to support either view. It's one thing to criticize fairly, it's another to project criticism. The majority of the criticism for the Clintons doesn't hold up to scrutiny. So, while there is room for valid criticism for both Clintons, no need to pile on projections that cannot be proved. I often suspect this attack on the Clintons regarding FISA and what she would do is an attempt to absolve Obama of something he actually did, and what he did is not defensible.

--Ron

<<I suspect that Obama's current drift is an acknowledgment of the tremendous political and economic power of some key private sector players. The law has been laid down: play ball or leave the field (or be driven from it). No mere political candidate can resist these mandates and survive it seems. (Had Hillary been in the saddle she would not have voted against FISA) Change in direction can only be effected by the population at large insisting upon it. The powers that be are counting on the fact that this is rather unlikely to happen.>>

Do you always assume you speak for some segment of the population (your claim that you speak for the reality-based segments)? On what basis? You have none that I can see, in fact, quite the opposite.

--Ron

<<I'd be happiest to debate Obama's tax increases, or government-controlled health care, or judicial appointments. But why bother, with the Democrat Netroots on display, for all of the the reality-based segments of the country to marvel at?>>

Those were not his only options. It seems quite likely they pushed this bill through with his blessing. I also don't but the cringing theory, which is that he'd lose the election if he fought this FISA bill, it would more likely have improved his chances. There is no constituency calling their congressrats and demanding more surveillance. Only guilty corporations and guilty politicians. Obviously, Obama thinks he should not stand up to them. That leads to the next point, obviously he has no principle he wouldn't sell, and that's what he did here on the FISA vote.

--Ron

<< Voting against the new FISA bill by a nominee, or worse, pursuing a filibuster, would have been a declaration of war against the forces pushing for it. A candidate who hopes to be elected could not openly oppose them before the election - that, I believe, is the calculation and my assertion. The Telecoms who "were" being sued have been, are, and will be providing information to the executive branch on whatever communications are deemed "interesting". Threatening them, and their executive branch partners with legal accountability for criminal behavior without the power to realistically follow through is ... just not reasonable behavior for a nominee. For an elected president... maybe, but i'm not holding my breath.>>