You know, no politician votes his or her "own judgment" all the time. Politics requires compromise. Sometimes a politician will support someone they deem an ally (or wish to make an ally) even if they disagree on the merits of the proposal. That's just the facts when dealing with a process where not everyone agrees on everything. Moreover, I don't think it's a problem. Sure, sometimes if a politician seems to be selling out a core principle, then it looks pretty ugly. But mostly, it's a way to get things done, and I can't get in such a high dudgeon about it.

Criticize these reps for the vote on the merits all you want. I probably agree with you. But that they saw it in their interest in this instance to throw support to Obama hardly represents some fundamental rupture in how our government is supposed to work.

Now, they're in charge of everything and they continue to fund the wars, and admit they're doing it even though they're opposed to the funding out of "loyalty" to the President.

2 Dems. 2. That's how many your posting cites as being opposed but voting out of loyalty to Obama. How many times have you lambasted reporters for taking such a thin base of facts and then using it to support whatever preconceived notion they want to put forward? And rightly so. Just sayin'.

By the way since you're fine with all of this - were you defending the GOP Congress from charges that they were too subservient to the Bush White House?

I believe I said that I probably agree with you on the merits of their vote. (I hedge because I haven't really looked at the bill specifics.) What I'm "fine with" is that some Democrats apparently felt in this instance that there were benefits to supporting Obama's position that outweighed their concerns over the substance of the bill. If they did this routinely -- and especially if, as happened in the Bush administration, they did it consistently over 8 years -- then I would feel very differently. So far, I don't think that's happening. But you're absolutely right to watch for it.

that Obama wanted that horrid Lieberman/Graham FOIA suspension in this bill, but it was the opposition of (some) Democrats that caused it to be stripped out. Hardly seems like they're just rolling over for anything Obama wants to me.

GG, I'd like to understand your argument a little better. Is it your position that the Take Care Clause requires the President to prosecute all suspected violations of the law? If not, then what are the considerations the President may take into account, or not take into account? And from where does one derive this authority (or prohibition) with respect to these considerations?

An excellent response, Glenn. To the point, calm, rational, refusing to respond with his level of nastiness...in a word, classy. It really shows Klein who the serious journalist is, I think.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes

So true, and what's interesting then is that there would therfore seem to be a natural consitutency among the "right" -- who claim to want smaller government, less debt, and lower taxes -- to oppose the permanent war state. But the modern military-industrial complex has managed to make national security one of the mantras of this same constituency, thus co-opting them. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to think that this was not completely fortuitous.

All that you say is true, GG, but I think there's also another phenomenon at work here. It seems to be a convention of editorial pages, in particular op-ed columnists, that they don't ever call each other out on their bullshit. You see it at the Times, too. Granted, it's usually just silence rather than this particularly egregious example of stone-throwing by glass house resident Fred Hiatt.