The ability to make a donation specifically directed to preventing the re-election of erstwhile Democrats who actively support the decimation of our Constitution is a great idea. A legislator who would grant retroactive immunity to those who have committed felonies by allowing statutorily and constitutionally illegal wiretapping, or who endorses torture, or votes to suspend habeas corpus does not deserve a free pass and does not deserve to sit in the United States Congress.

It's just too bad we can't somehow link these types of activities to hookers. Now that seems to be something that gets everyone's attention.

Sure is a good thing that the surveillance stuff is all in place and ready to go, though, so that attention can be distracted on a massive scale whenever there is a particularly distasteful revelation about to hit the wires. The Spitzer thing is much better than the Friday news cycle; so what if it's coincidentally being disclosed that surveillance practices are and have long been much broader than previously admitted.... Even at Salon, take a look at the number of comments to GG's Spitzer entry as compared to virtually any other entry in the past months.

While it ain't over yet, let's nobody forget what we're talking about. And while we 'Muricans should not have to be in a position where we are thanking our elected representatives for, of all things, proposing to respect the Rule of Law and the Constitution, life under the Bush Administration has made it necessary to note those rare instances where that is being pursued.

So I, for one, am pleased to see the degree of progress reflected in this Democratic proposal on FISA. And I want every Congressperson to know that I appreciate this development more because it reflects attention to respecting the Rule of Law as much as for any other reason. They should do such things more often -- we'd be a better country for it.

Now finish the job by standing firm.

$108 a barrel for oil isn't high enough.

When looking for this kind of bizarre quote, need we go any farther than George W. Bush seeking to justify retroactive telecom immunity yesterday by ominously chiding House Democrats for "playing politics with the past" instead of immunizing it with a political sleight of hand today?

Is that materially different from the Ruler of Swamp Castle in Monty Python's Holy Grail who, upon introducing the "very rich and influential" Sir Lancelot back to the throng Lancelot has just viciously attacked, brushes off the crowd's protests with "Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who"....

Yeah, this spying stuff may have been a felony but, hey, that was in the past. We monarchs only have to look ahead. It's a mindset that just cannot exist in a democratic country ruled by a system of laws -- and it's the mindset of our President.

But don't you realize...

A ship has two sides: port and starboard.

Always remember, port is left.

If if there are two sides and one is port, the one that is left must be starboard.

So starboard is left.

It's from Mad Magazine. I've waited my whole life to say it. And now I find it's already conservative doctrine.

We are not supposed to have to thank legislators for respecting the rule of law or for adhering to the United States Constitution.

But then, these past dark years have rendered such activities rare and even dangerous. May today's vote be the start of something American.

To the majority of the members of the House of Representatives! Hear, hear!

Isn't the latest poll showing that 29% of the country believes the Iraq war to have been justifiable and 66% believe it to have been a mistake? So, then, how is it that there are Washington types and Media types who make their livings by continuing to tell us all is on track?

The "justification", which GG aptly nomenclates as "Serious" and "Respected", seems usually to be rooted in the notion that the "Serious" folk understand things at a level the mere doofuses in the USA do not; that we are being served by an elite which knows what's best for us because we can't think it through ourselves. It's another perspective on the risk Obama took in suggesting that Americans are mature and intelligent enough to consider the ramifications of the racial history of this country without losing their cool or their attention -- the "Serious" war proponents don't think that Americans could have such an attention span on issues of international right and wrong, either, so they presume to reassure us that They, the Serious folk, possess an understanding of the finer points that we should assume escapes the grasp of we mere citizens. If We knew what They know, We would support the Iraq war, too....

So what happens when Serious folk are wandering around so utterly bereft of the most basic understanding of the groundwork of the civilizations they are urging us to attack? McCain has to have Joe Lieberman tell him that the Iranians aren't predisposed to like Al Quaeda and aren't supporting them? And this on the third iteration? AND THEN the likes of Joe Klein have to step in and make excuses for this?

McCain's vacuity is bad enough. But the propaganda machine of the Serious likes of Klein, et al, has got to be visibly weakened in the eyes of 'Murikins when stuff this blatant is laid bare. Thank you for spelling it out, GG. Who will pick this up and run with it on TV?