Although why I am accused of thinking the majority of the American public agrees with me is very mystifying. specially since I am saying they don't think much.

Ok, maybe you don't think they "think like you" but you do think you know how they will react to impeachment:

Just don't expect any fratitude from the American public, and expect the MSM to do everything in its power to see that there is as little as possible.

So I'm asking how you know this. I gave you the example of the 74 impeachment, and others mentioned that the GOP didn't exactly get routed in 1998 or 2000 over the Clinton impeachment. So what makes you think the public would take a Bush impeachment so badly other than the psychology of not liking people pointing out your mistakes?

Am I making myself sufficiently clear, fellows? I've already been accused of "using a technique which Glenn Greenwald doesn't like" and my relations with the aforementioned progenitor of this blog being very distant, I can only assume the commentor is right.

Yes, clear, but not sufficiently explained and defended. I don't think you're getting a particularly rough ride here. People are debating you in good faith, I merely assumed you had read Glenn's blog and were familiar with his complaint about generalizing personal views (see posts on Broder for more on this).

As others have said, you're essentially arguing for avoiding doing the right thing because it might not be taken well by the public. Ie triangulation.

If it were reasonably assured the public would hate the Democrats for impeaching Bush, then it would be tactically foolish to do so when the Senate result is preordained.

I don't fault anyone for calling for impeachment. I do agree the idea can't start with Pelosi, and requires a genuine groundswell of public outrage. Which is why the more ordinary people are yelling "impeach" the more likely we can drag Pelosi reluctantly to the idea.

The elected Democrats can't really lead on this. If they do, it just comes off as a coup. If the public demands it, then it comes off as the move of patriots and concerned public officials.

So more yelling and impeachment letters from all. Simply understand Pelosi can't tip her hand until the time is ripe.

From McConnell's piece is any actual hypothetical case where changes to FISA would protect American lives.

I mean, would it be so hard to point out a specific passage of FISA that is technologically incoherent, which would result in a warrant not being granted for some type of new technology activity by terrorists?

What, are they text-messaging explosives to each other? Emailing C4? Can they ping my workstation and make it explode?

It's all so vague and encompassing, without any specifics.

Normally, saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a logical fallacy. But when you factor in the other things we know about FISA and the malignancy of the administration, I conclude, there are no hypothetical specific cases given where FISA is inadequate because no such cases exist. He cannot point to a faulty part of FISA which is blocking the administration from doing timely and meaningful spying on likely terrorists.

My guess is, their proposed modifications to FISA will entail making the requirement for a warrant into an option. The only reason to get a warrant in the mind of the Administration is if you anticipate charging a suspect in a civilian court. That's not likley to be necessary anymore now that they kanga-courts of the MCA are up and hopping.

Yes, the Democrats, as a class (but not to a man) failed to stop all this. But that just punts the question: Who are the Democrats? Who have the membership been putting forward as candidates, and who have Americans been voting for?

It is after all, more than just a name, it truly is the "democratic" party with a small d, and what many have been trying to do is take the party back.

And when good people stand aside from the Democrats and Republicans and say "not my problem" they make it worse. The Democratic party is salvagable, the Republicans need a much longer term cure.

A reminder to digg this article please.

Some people whine when Greenwald writes about the media, well here he is, ignoring the WaPo's complicity in publishing this nonsense, and substantively rebutting the administration on the most serious matters of the constituitonal order.

This is why most of us read Greenwald right? The core of what he is best at?

So get digging.

Great stuff.

The key thing is the ability to define US citizens as "agents of foreign powers" under the act. That's the truck-sized loop hole.

The rest of it is probably just tack ons they don't care about except that they draw attention away from that most crucial change.