The Democrats are not capitulating because they don't want to look soft on terror. The Democrats are capitulating because whatever will come out in the lawsuits will incriminate Democrats. I didn't think of it before it was explicitly cited on Countdown last night by a Professor of Law at GWU. Before then, I really couldn't understand the calculation. It is manifestly not the case that fighting FISA is a political liability even in conservative districts. And I for one can't see how Democrats would so thrash their base at such an important time, when enthusiasm is so key to their prospects, merely for the Telecom benefactors. What hadn't occured to me, is that they are simply protecting their own, as is Obama with his sposorship of the blue dog Dem in Georgia. Now it makes all the sense in the world, if you consider that the organizing principle of Democrats and politicians in general is to protect their turf at the public trough. What wonderful people politicians are.

Of course, I'm no less depressed for the revelation, but at least I'm less puzzled.

Amazing. I just came from the New Republic, having read that very post. I was simply floored by how disingenuous it was- pathetic really. The author didn't bother to engage on the merits of Greenwald's argument- why doesn't this FISA vote or telco immunity, aka investigating the illegal activities of our government- matter, actually? why is our perspective so off?- resorting instead to brazenly fallacious argument, 'who thinks the Democrats are trying to subvert the Constitution', 'why are they trying to defeat Democrats', etc. Actually, no, the argument is not that Democrats are the foremost movers in laying waste to the 4th Amendment or habeas, although, to be fair, that is certainly possible too, (and no evidence supporting the opposite proposition is presented by our incredulous New Republican- the mere fact that it is 'obvious' doesn't due for us 'nuts'). And no, the campaign is not to defeat Democrats, it is to select Democrats who represent their constituencies. That by the way also goes by a different name- representative democracy if I remember correctly from high school civics.

Seriously, why is it that people are so wiling to dismiss Greenwald and the various Constitutional scholars that stand with him on this issue without remotely explaining why that is, aside from asserting that they are 'nuts' and 'extremists' of course? When they deign it necessary to comment at all. Speaking of which, I'm sure they'd be just as happy to completely ignore this with the small exception that these (insert derisive tone or modifier here) bloggers actually have quite a large following of people who are paying attention to this issue, care about it and what it means for our republic, and how it reflects the admonishions of the framers that created it. Then again, I suppose those guys were pretty nutty too!

A republic- if you can keep it. If not, the New Republic will chip in on the public relations front to help ease the transition to Despotism.

...and probably about as much as I can afford at present. But when/if Steny Hoyer gets a genuine challenge in a Democratic primary, I am definitely going to back up the truck and give up to and beyond the pain threshold. I'll vacation in my back yard for a few years, I don't care. He's not getting reelected by way of anything remotely in the vicinity of my indifference.

If that 'misquote' by Politico was an accident, I'm Jackie Treehorn. They needed to paint you as a hyperbolic left wing 'moonbat', and that quote was the only one sufficiently infused with emotion (even as it was taken grossly out of context). The 'technical glitch' was a convenient (and subtly passive aggressive) way to buy some more time until the hits on the story fell off a cliff, and now of course they change it.

Btw, I have little doubt that your criticism of that rag had something to do with their needing to pin a mantle on your head, at the very least at some subconscious level. But I suppose all you can do at this point is thank them for bothering with the correction.

On a broader level, was journalism always this devoid of ethical behavior? I mean, is it just that I'm learning now that the media is a collection of junior high schoolers so monomaniacally focused on settling scores and servicing 'The Man' in pursuit of status and money, that they really don't give a crap about their craft or their dignity, much less their place as guardians of a free society? I mean, News Corp is a perfect example of a media entity that brazenly abuse the trust their viewer/readership place in them for the gain of The Dear Leader (see for example the New York Post's new fondness for smearing Olbermann and NBC in general). Not that NBC is above the fray there either. This is all just naked score settling and truly utterly pathetic. No wonder this country is headed down the shitter. Seriously, no wonder.

Jim Jones' supporters followed him to the bitter end too.

PS Rebecca, thanks for duitifully not reporting that Will Bower, PUMA's founder, was present at Larry Sinclair's important appearance at the National Press Club. He was quoted by Politico as saying, "I don’t think he should be written off without consideration. I think it's worth exploring." Indeed, who could doubt that Obama was having gay sex with Sinclair while doing copious amounts of china. Certainly not Hillary's maligned army of patriotic fighters ought to strike a blow for the white woman.

Indeed, my heart just bleeds for these folks.