"Stonewalling the Administration and letting the surveillance powers expire could have cost the Democrats swing seats they won in 2006 as well as new ones they have a chance to steal from Republicans this November."

Well, at least this quote from the TIME article shows how well-received Nancy's "bipartisan compromise" will be with the media when the elections roll around. In the very article seeking to introduce this FISA capitulation to the public and package it for future reference, TIME makes sure to characterize what really was an abject concession as, instead, a nefarious plot to deflect public attention to how weak the Dems are on Terra... all in order to help maybe "steal" some congressional seats which, of course, rightly "belong" to the Republicans. It's not like we have elections in this country, the seats belong to the Republicans unless the Democrats are able somehow to put something over on the public and steal them.

Yep, Nancy's "plan" here was only to hope that by November the public won't remember there was ever any disagreement about forfeiting the Constitution -- but don't worry, TIME will remind us all about how the Dems really tried to pull a fast one back in June when they orchestrated a total abandonment of the Constitution but did it early so that they could "steal seats" come November. TIME just set itself up to remind us all, in the fall, that this FISA "correction" was really nothing more than a Democratic ruse to deprive the Republicans of a good opportunity to demonstrate how cowardly the Democrats are.

Damn, and Nancy was hoping nobody would notice. Now she's done trashed the Constitution and she still won't be able to steal any seats.

When the reporting is this craven and malicious, why exactly do the Democrats keep walking into traps like this every time they have a chance to take a principled stand?

The recent campaign to target three Blue Dogs in anticipation of a FISA fight was inspired and right on target. But the vote has come and gone, unfortunately, leaving the balance of the ad campaign's funds -- and potential for impacting the issue -- unfortunately unmoored. Tilting at those three undeniably bad actors right now is a little like having an unerring instinct for the capillary, not the jugular. Not out of choice, of course, but perhaps out of inertia?

Who, however, is "responsible" for the way this is? It is Nancy Pelosi. She has a bigger majority at her fingertips than Newt at his apex, and has done nothing with it but suck up to the President at every illegal, unconstitutional turn. And she has done it by choice: the politically expedient announcement in 2006 that she would brook no discussion of impeachment might even have been a good faith, bipartisan-spirited olive branch in 2006, but since Bush has openly utilized that quasi-, non-legal "nicety" as nothing more than a weapon in his attacks upon the Constitution, Pelosi's blind refusal to allow any meaningful Congressional oversight has been either stupid or collusive but nothing else. She, and she alone, must take the greatest share of responsibility for not only this FISA debacle but every other debacle outlined in the 35 Articles of Impeachment that she even now is throttling in Congress.

So if I was looking around for what to do with the funds and the energy that have been righteously and impressively accumulated and directed toward three deserving-but-perhaps-less-immediately-impactful-congresspersons-now-that-the-targeted-vote-has-happened, it seems to me that the very best person to target over the Democrats' utter failures to accomplish virtually any single thing of lasting importance during the past two years is, drum roll, Nancy Pelosi. By an enormous margin.

Tell Pelosi, and her cadre of sheep, that the country would be better served with anyone -- yes, even a perceived "one issue hot button" congressperson whose "one issue" just happens to be that the President ought to have to respect the Constitution, as Cindy Sheehan is -- than a sniveling synchophant like Pelosi at the helm, steering the ship of state calmly, serenely and bipartisanly onto the shoals.

No, I'm not from Pelosi's district, you're absolutely right. Then again, are you from Hoyer's district? There are those ready to warn that trying to unseat him is a tough row to hoe, too. Says so even in comments in this morning's thread.

I would be more than willing to assume that Pelosi has been re-elected on comfortable margins for a while now, and I would further presume that her vaunted status as Speaker gets bandied about as a reason why she should be re-elected, since it "bespeaks wisdom and leadership recognized among her peers" which her constitutents should want to preserve for their own benefit. That's her position, that's the conventional wisdom to be sure.

And that is exactly why directing a nationally-backed, issue and performance based campaign against Pelosi is something I think would be relatively more impactful and immeasurably more important than attacking even the most well-positioned pawns in the game. Even if "it might not work" -- which, upon consideration, is in fact the fairest characterization of the Pelosi-led hallmark of the Democrats' rationalizations for their choices when facing Bush's excesses -- I think risking "not working" is a better bet at the Pelosi level than it is at the Hoyer level. Let the Democratic Party understand that there is a significant body of the electorate who see exactly what is going on and exactly where it is coming from. Indeed, I wouldn't be all that disappointed if the "only thing" that came of it was that Pelosi lost her speakership.