Glenn, do you think the folks at the Cato Institute and other more libertarian leaning organizations will donate? It might get them really nervous if they think Dems are joining with Conservatives on this issue.

Al Gore told us last night that ELECTIONS MATTER. If that's true why is the Democratically controlled Congress caving in to the Bush administration on telecom immunity?

Mr. Bush v. the Bill of Rights

Published: June 18, 2008

In the waning months of his tenure, President Bush and his allies are once again trying to scare Congress into expanding the president’s powers to spy on Americans without a court order.

This week, the White House and Democratic and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill hope to announce a “compromise” on a domestic spying bill. If they do, it will be presented as an indispensable tool for protecting the nation’s security that still safeguards our civil liberties. The White House will paint opponents as weak-kneed liberals who do not understand and cannot stand up to the threat of terrorism.

The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.

You can find the full editorial at this link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18wed1.html?ref=opinion

Glenn, I'm glad to see that we are linking with people from all political persuasions who fight for civil liberties. This new alliance will make us stronger. It will be pretty hard for the media to label us as the liberal left when we have a wide variety of political parties working together to defeat this bad bill.

Thanks for taking your time to get this up and running. And thanks to all the others involved in organizing this effort.

How depressing. While we all know how corrupt the system is it is very hard when we see yet another politician helping to perpetuate that system. I'll make another call to the Obama campaign today so if nothing else they know that another voter has noticed our candidate's duplicity.

When I tried to find a WaPo story about Taguba's war crimes charge today it took me awhile. I finally found it but noticed that in addition to bad placement they were also downplaying the actual story. I just sent several questions to their 11 a.m. Post Politics Hour online chat. If you guys think these questions need to be answered I hope you too will submit questions.

Post Politics Hour link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/06/14/DI2008061401789.html

Here's what I sent:

I have a couple of questions about a Joby Warrick story that appeared on page A7 of the Post:

Exams Back Up Reports of Detainee Abuse, Group Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/18/AR2008061800336.html

I almost missed this story because I was looking for a headline that talked about a former Bush administration general accusing the administration of war crimes.

Why did the Post bury the headline on this story? Does the Post believe it is not newsworthy that a former General accuses the administration of war crimes?

Included in the Warrick piece was this single characterization about what Taguba said. It was at the end of the piece and did not include his actual quote:

"In a statement accompanying the report, retired Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army's first official investigation on Abu Ghraib, said the new evidence SUGGESTED a "systematic regime of torture" inside U.S.-run detention camps."

Do Warrick and the Post really think that Taguba only SUGGESTED torture when he said:

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Why did Warrick and the Post go out of it's way to downplay this story?

FYI for anyone who still hasn't called Obama.

I just called Obama's office and spoke to a woman named Fay (very nice person). I let her know that I've been following the FISA/immunity issue and couldn't believe that Hoyer, Rockefeller and the other Dems. were selling out the American people.

I also told her that I just saw on MSNBC where Chris Cilliza was asked how the public would react to Obama's announcement about dropping public financing. Cilliza said that the public really won't care about how he funds his campaign but they do care about hypocrisy and that the McCain camp is already jumping on the issue from that angle (Obama will do or say anything to get elected). So if Obama is going to take a hit for hypocrisy on public financing why is he risking another hit for hypocrisy on FISA? Obama has stated that he is against telecom immunity yet he isn't leading on this issue. He is supposed to be a new kind of politician so he needs to show it on FISA.

I said a bunch of other things including a reference to Nader. She said that she just came on duty and her last two calls were also about this issue. She took my email address and thanked me for calling.

By the way when Icalled the nunmber listed in Glenn's column I had to dial 6 then dial 0. But then there was a recorded that told me that I couldn't leave a message but to dial 0 to speak to someone.