I remember listening to the Randi Rhodes show a while ago, when they were discussing the Ohio vote. Can't remember who her guest was but he was discussing how livid John Edwards was at Kerry for conceding so fast. They had the exit polls showing they had won, and the "official" results showing Bush won. Exit polls are never wrong because they ask people right after they have voted. It's how they verify an election was fair in 3rd world countries, by comparing the exit polls to the official results. If they match, the election was fair. If they don't, it's evidence of fraud. The reason Kerry choose not to contest the election results was because he was afraid they'd be called names. "They'll call us sore losers" he told Edwards. Because Kerry was afraid of being called a sore-loser he allowed Bush to steal the election. Kerry is typical of almost every elected dem in congress. Afraid of being called "weak on terror" or "unamerican", they refuse to stand up.

@ Scientician: How does the spying empower Bush? Any evidence that they have used it against political opponents? (reminds me of the ex-bouncer in the Clinton admin who got FBI files on Republicans). If Bush is spying on political opponents, why are they giving him the go ahead to keep it up? Do you know more than his opponents do?

Of course we have no evidence that the Bush admin has used their secret programs on political opponents. We have no idea who they have wiretapping because they refuse to tell anyone. See how that works? That's why it's called a secret program. I would think even conservatives could grasp the concept of what secret means. But as to why dems might be willing to give the Bush admin more spying power, maybe they are being blackmailed? Maybe they have illegally spied on key democrats to gain info to blackmail them with? When someone is blackmailed, both the victim and the blackmailer have a vested interest in keeping it secret. Because that's how blackmail works. So if key dems were being blackmailed, they wouldn't be able to announce it. Because the embarassing info on them would be exposed. Now I have to add that I know that the Bush admin would never ever do something illegal. Because they are such fine morally upstanding individuals, and Bush himself is a devout Christian.

Well we all know when they passed the temporary "Protect America act", when it came up for renewal they'd try to make it permanent. Lo and behold, only two months later and they are trying to do just that. I think Glenn predicted this would happen, as did others. What I bet will happen is both the house and senate with pass similar bills doing this. The senate bill will provide immunity to the telco's, while the house version won't. Then when the bill gets hashed out in the conference committee, the immunity provision will be kept in. As for the provision that the Bush admin disclose who've they've been wiretapping. What's to keep Bush from just refusing to comply with that provision of the law? NOTHING. Bush obeys only the laws he feels like obeying, and discards the rest.

The NYT articles says that the pending bill will allow for blanket warrants? The FISA court will have to approve them but instead of individual warrants, they will be for broad group of people. Aren't blanket warrants unconstitutional?

The right-wingers like Malkin make me sick to my stomach. The way they've attacked a 12 year old and his family, shows they have no morals whatsoever. The lack of compassion is what really bothers me. Read the comments on Malkin's site, they'll make your stomach turn and blood boil. People making assumptions about people they have zero knowledge about. Like how they live in such an expensive house. The fact is they bought it 16 years ago for 55 thousand, when the neighborhood was bad. Then they attack the father for owning his own business. He should get a real job that provides insurance, is a common sentiment. Funny how conservatives that worship free-enterprise, turn aganist that principle if it suits their purposes. Malkin and her ilk are nothing but hateful hateful people.

I posed this question in a previous comment thread here but no one answered it. The Restore act that congress is debating would authorize blanket warrants. I asked the question that aren't blanket warrants unconstitutional? I thought all warrants had to be on an individual basis. The British's use of blanket warrants were one of the reasons our founding father's fought the war of Independence. God it's depressing how far we have receeded in just six short years. What every american citizen needs to take, regardless of age, is a course on civics. It should be mandatory so that everyone in the country understands how our system of gov't is supposed to work. The abuses of the last six years wouldn't of been allowed to happen if Americans know their civics.