So now there are procedural machinations -- majority leadership, Democratic Party manipulations -- being employed to limit debate on the FISA bill in the Senate. Let's see how that turns out, but....

It is Pelosi's actions that have caused, allowed or furthered absolutely all of this. Even the present FISA bill, which was sprung out of who-knows-where onto the House Floor last week with a pre-ordained one hour debate limit, was unequivocally a creature of Pelosi's origin, for it could not possibly have been presented that way without the consent and direction of the Speaker. Don't for a moment think that subsequent judicial review of this abomination won't be hindered by the absence of a cogent Legislative History, or that Pelosi's railroading of this bill won't play into the hands of Scalia's newly-proposed standard of "constitutional interpretation" governed by whether the "situation is dangerous".

Has any of this advanced the ball, either as a matter of Constitutional Democracy or even Democratic electoral politics? No effing way, of course. This is a constitutional nightmare and even when Pelosi tries to shill it before TIME magazine she gets herself and her party openly mocked for engaging in what is characterized as only a calculated scheme to help Democrats "steal" congressional seats from the Rethugs. Great realization upon the strategic value seen in orchestrating such a capitulation, don't you think?

It's time to focus some national attention on what a disaster Nancy Pelosi is and has been for the Democratic Party and for America. Her local constituents undoubtedly thought they would be getting better out of her on the meaningful issues than she has delivered, and with some national encouragement they might say so. In those regards, it's actually a good thing that her San Francisco-specific demographic is what's in play -- that's a demographic that will elect a tire iron to Congress so long as it's registered Democratic and has no felony convictions, let them make some informed "message" votes, maybe chide Pelosi for the rest of us, maybe even replace her with another Democrat, any other Democrat. Cindy Sheehan would be virtual poetic justice, but hell, get Willie Brown drafted or even Barry Bonds, they like him there, right (I said "convictions"[that's a joke]).

Nancy Pelosi has been an unmitigated disaster. It is NOT "too late" to give serious attention to impeachment, and there is nothing clearer than that impeachment is not a "problem", it is the "solution" proposed by the Constitution and Pelosi's abject failure to embrace this constitutional direction has been the source of the predicament she has placed this country in at this moment, be it FISA, torture, monarchy or any other aspect of the Bush Administration.

I'll vote for Obama unless he opens fire on some schoolchildren between now and the election. But if we're going to do anything to try to restore any of the critical elements of Constitutional Democracy, anything at all, it has to start with getting our Legislative Branch to at least pretend that it has a role in keeping the Executive Branch from implementing a dictatorship. George Bush thinks he should be a dictator, and for that I think he should be impeached. But Nancy Pelosi could do something to interfere with that imperial design, yet she has failed to do the least little thing and, for that, there should at least be a public reproval and some criticism affecting her electoral and congressional position. In my opinion.

Damn near noble of Nancy Pelosi to now say that the same FISA amendments that she, personally, caused to be submitted to her House with a one hour "debate" limit on the day it was released, and which she then tried to characterize as a Democratic Party "victory", maybe ought to be debated a bit by the Senate because people are "mad" about it. How 'bout she just resigns her Chair instead?

Senator Feingold, who is coming to the fore and may end up filibustering this bill (assuming his Senate Democratic leaders are, as expected, spineless enough to ignore less disruptive and eminently legitimate "holds" that will be requested), is to be commended and supported. His suggestion, however, that this FISA bill may "hide" impeachable offenses needs to be clarified, though. The only way this FISA bill could be said to "hide" anything is to recognize it "hides in plain sight" what are obviously, and statutorily presumed to be, impeachable offenses!

The telecoms will be excused for accepting the President's word that the requested warrantless wiretapping was "legal." The bill does NOT say that the President's word was correct, true or even plausible. And it is only because "everybody knows that impeachment is off the table" -- which is not a constitutional standard, it's the contrivance of identifiable politicians who shall remain nameless -- that there is any reason the passage of this bill should not be Exhibit A at the impeachment of George W. Bush under Articles 24 and 25 of the Kucinich resolution for impeachment.

This bill assumes the President could be impeached over his warrantless wiretapping programs. It presumes he would be convicted by a rational body applying the facts to the Constitution and the law. It just also presumes, under it's breath, that nobody has got the guts to do it. And that's the way it is being received.

Great piece. Thank you for reminding KO what he has said about this before. May he read your comment and reflect upon it before going back on the air.