"While Webb's vote on FISA was bad.... I trust Jim Webb and Russ Feingold a lot more than I do HRC(or any Republican .. including Lincoln Chaffee)".

--This Machine Kills Fascists

The point of my post was to call out the common tactic of using Webb's (and others') status as a hero to bolster one's argument. Unless the topic under discussion is courage in the face of severe adversity it is wrong to cite heroism as a rhetorical embellishment.

The Webb amendment is good legislation based solely on the merit of what it proposes to do. Why does labeling Webb as a war hero make Glenn's argument, in this case, stronger? In my view, it doesn't. Webb's status as a parent with a son on active duty is far more relevant to the issue addressed by the amendment than anything he did thirty five years ago in Viet Nam. Additionally, Webb's experience leading men in combat should be sufficient to counter the Kagans' lack of military service in the argument Glenn makes.

The main difference between the use of this rhetorical device and that employed by the Petraeus cult is volume. The rightwing is much more effective at amplifying their message.

Further, I am disturbed by those who seem to think that exemplary performance in combat automatically implies superiority in other aspects of an individual's life. There are any number of extraordinary soldiers/sailors/marines who have gone on to lead less than admirable lives (e.g., Duke Cunningham).

To be clear, I am not equating Webb's behavior to Cunningham's. I am saying that Webb's violation of his oath to defend the Constitution has done far more damage to our political heritage than all of his many years of public service have done to foster it. As such, in my mind his hero status is negated and rendered completely irrelevant.

This does not in any way suggest that Webb is incapable of doing legislative good in the future. Just avoid the hero bullshit.

Neal says about Elizabeth Dole:

"My opponent is a good person trapped in a bad system."

Neal goes on to list a few of Dole's transgressions as a senator (and Pam lists several more).

I realize the pragmatism involved when challenging a popular incumbent, but the above quotation is frustrating to anyone who cares about addressing political corruption. No one is holding a gun to Dole's head as she casts her votes. She is not trapped. She is not some lowly drone slaving away in a corporate cubicle just to keep her company-provided health insurance. Bad systems don't exist in a vacuum. Bad systems are not run by good people.

Given the reality of Dole's popularity, Neal needn't attack her personally, but surely he can find a better way to confront her record than this. If Neal actually believes this framing, I wonder how long it will take for him to become "trapped".

As everyone who regularly reads this blog regularly realizes, the bad system exists only with Democratic collaboration. Would be members of the "more, better Democrats" clique need to address this reality as matter-of-factly as Neal addressed his sexual orientation.

"From a purely political standpoint, I find it virtually incomprehensible that Democrats are not tripping over each other to oppose granting immunity to the telecoms. I understand that many Democrats live in constant fear of being labeled "soft on terror,"...."

AL, I think you're defining the term "political standpoint" too narrowly. A few commenters upthread have mentioned corruption generally and the $40,000 Rockefeller has collected recently from telecoms specifically. Let's take a look at the Democratic leadership and see what they've been up to in this respect:

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader: at least $22,000

Byron Dorgan, Policy Chair: at least $42,000

Charles Schumer, DSCC Chair: at least $61,500

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House: at least $33,000

Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader: at least $42,000

James Clyburn, Majority Whip: at least $43,500

Rahm Emanuel, Caucus Chair: at least $14,000

(source: opensecrets.org, 2006 election cycle)

This is just a quick survey of available campaign finance data and it is in no way all inclusive.

If this is not the most likely explanation of the Dems craven behavior, then the application of Occam's Razor suggests that they act as they do because they want the full cooperation of the telecoms should they want to exercise the extra legal power to surveil sans warrants sometime in the future.

Either way, it's pretty depressing.

Should AT&T, Verizon, et.al. end up defending their actions in court, what's the worst that can happen?

If they're all found guilty of multiple violations of the 1978 FISA law it's unlikely that anyone will go to jail. At most, they'll be ordered to pay many millions of dollars in damages and fines and end out filing for Chapter 11 protection under the Bankruptcy laws.

Hell, to any utility CEO worth his eight figure annual compensation package, bankruptcy is an opportunity!

Consider what happened at Pacific Gas & Electric Company in the wake of the California energy crisis several years ago. The power company was bankrupted following the winter 2000/2001 collapse of the retail electricity market. In the subsequent three years spent undergoing reorganization under the protection of the bankruptcy court, PG&E paid it's top executives and managers over $200 million in bonuses (source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/12/BU85522.DTL&type=business and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/23/BUGN77RQ2P1.DTL).

You read that right: $200 million. CEO Gordon Smith alone took in an extra $12 million above and beyond an already lucrative salary.

So, Fred Hiatt needs to take a step back and look at what's truly important to the people running the telecoms: How can they most easily fatten their own wallets. Afterall, that was the apparent motivation in cooperating in illegal surveillance in the first place, not out of any sense of patriotism.