I completely agree with the strategy of only spending money on a short list of vulnerable pols. With limited resources, you have to focus.

That said, in addition to people's dollars, is there a way to harness their energy and expertise? It may not make sense to spend money going after Rockefeller, but why not have a contest to generate a youtube ad against him that might spread virally via email, local political blogs, etc.? Perhaps there could be a website with a list of the top 20 candidates where tech-savvy users could submit ads. A thought.

PS I see Politico still hasn't corrected that bogus quote, many hours after saying they would do so.

So Pelosi is implicitly saying the bill should not have been rammed through the House as if she were just a regular Congressman, not Speaker.

And Reid is saying this:

Unfortunately, the FISA compromise bill establishes a process where the likely outcome is immunity...

This is just kabuki. Reid is majority leader in the Senate. Surely, if he wanted to, he could bring a version of the bill without immunity and force advocates to produce 60 votes to add it as an amendment. He just doesn't want to.

I think they are earnest. Indeed, Dodd and Feingold played important roles in blocking this in the past. If that was kabuki, it was impossibly good kabuki.

Where was Ron Paul on the shameful FISA "compromise" bill passed by the House on Friday? I am certain that he opposed it -- especially the telco amnesty provision -- but I see he did not vote. Why not? Has he made or will he make a speech explaining to his many supporters and the American people generally why this bill is so troubling and urging the Senate to reject it?

The email form is here: http://www.house.gov/paul/contact.shtml and his Washington office number is (202) 225-2831.

I'm also pondering whether and if so how to pressure John McCain. If he were to publicly show some degree of discomfort on the immunity question that might help derail/delay this some more. Recall his advisers have been a little confused on this (while ultimately hewing to the party line) and he did make some good noises in an interview with Charlie Savage a while back. So perhaps his views aren't cast in stone on FISA like they are on Iraq.

Thanks, Glenn. That was a good statement from Ron Paul. I missed it earlier. Here's the official link: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr062008h.htm

(As a trivial side note, he could benefit from a copy editor. It's not "Mr. Speaker".)

I preferred Obama over Clinton, but I was taken aback by how aggressively and -- more importantly -- unfairly Olby railed against Clinton. But that seems like peanuts now.

Contrast this with Dodd's speech which was incredible. The role of reason in our discourse has atrophied beyond belief. So much of it is silly, petty games or tribal loyalties. There are stars in the sky, like your remarkable writing and analysis, Glenn, or Dodd's incredible FISA speech. We have to find a way to make that the dominant part of our discourse rather than a thread, but man is it an uphill climb.

Actually, it looks like Glenn (and implicitly the WSJ) are probably correct here. Glenn points out that in the quote you gave from Audacity of Hope, Obama stated that he favors the death penalty for those who rape and kill children -- not "merely" those who rape them. In fact, doing some googling I can't find anything where Obama has advocated the death penalty for a crime against individuals that does not involve murder. So it looks like his statement on the Supreme Court decision is at best in tension with his previous statements.

The whole Nixon didn’t pardon his subordinates argument is a red herring. Nixon was trying to avoid being impeached. Impeachment was the remedy the founders envisioned for abuse of executive clemency. That’s a real threat in the midst of a presidency as Nixon was (at least it is if you have a Congress with a semblance of a spine). But it’s more or less an empty threat at the end of a presidency (as Bush will be after November). That’s why Bush’s relatively moderate and sane Dad thought (correctly) he could get away with pardoning Iran Contra figures (notably Weinberger) and that’s why Bush Jr. won’t worry about large scale pardons. In case there was any doubt, he already tipped his hand with the Libby commutation, for goodness’ sake. To say nothing of the fact that Bush was willing to violate black letter law -- FISA -- for his surveillance law. Why would he not be willing to use his perfectly legal pardon power?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/wsj-obama-bush-third/

It's of course absurd to argue (as the Journal does) that Obama -- not McCain -- is the candidate running for Bush's third time. Even on this issue McCain is marginally closer to Bush (his current position is he supports immunity). And of course McCain is far worse (and closer to Bush) than Obama on many other issues.

Still, the point rankles. As some wag said, if you're going to sell your soul at least get a good price for it. Obama is selling his soul on this and getting less than nothing in return.