This is the internet being used as it should be. Congratulations.

Would certainly explain some otherwise puzzling things.

Yes, the MSM is grossly ineffective. But I don't think it is a Right-Wing thing. For instance, CNN developed a reputation as a Liberal-leaning news organization during the Clinton administration. FOX news arose as the Right-wing alternative and was wildly successful. And what I mean by that is: ratings and money. Pure and simple. The WashPo was never so far in the tank as it is now. Why? Same reasons that the NYTimes allowed Judy Miller to wreak havoc on its news pages. Proximity to power requires sucking up. And proximity to power gives newspapers access to newsmakers. Again. Ratings (circulation) and money.

Not to mention that there has been a decided shift Right in this country post-Carter. This was a nationwide shift of the pendulum and the those in the news business were certainly not immune. That, however, is clearly changing.MSNBC is now achieving great success -- ratings and money -- by providing an alternative to FOX. From what I can tell, CNN is caught in the middle and looking for an identity. My guess would be that, of all the TV MSM networks, CNN is best-positioned to provide serious television journalism. Not to say that it will: right now it appears to upping the vapidity ante with pretty-face anchors and treading water.

Fianlly, I don't agree with your attacks on David Broder, who I think is reasoanble and gentlemanly. Both of which this country could use a lot more of, regardless of the seriousness of the cause.

Good stuff.

Rockefeller's op-ed is the same kind of disingenuous jingosim we get all the time from the Bush Administration. The thrust of it is that the telecom companies are totally off the hook (get it?) if they were asked to do what they did by the Bush Administration. The Rockefeller legislation is flawed because, as pointed out, between Rockefeller's telecom amnesty porvision and the government's state secrets privilege, we will never know how and why FISA was violated. That is unacceptable. Maybe after all the facts are known, then one might decide amnesty of some kind is appropriate. I do think there is a question of fairness here: The Bush Adminstration no doubt scared the b'jeesus out of the telecoms, though I'm sure the government offered carrots too. On the other hand, not all the telecoms complied with the government's demands, a telling indication that there was some serious concern about what the Administration was requesting. They do have lots of lawyers. Too many unknowns right now. Whatever amnesty is appropriate for the telecoms, if any, simply cannot be determined without a much better factual record. Blanket, blind immunity is unacceptable and the Rockefeller bill must be defeated.

Yes, there should be accountability for all, but -- notwithstanding lip service to the contrary -- that is simply not a prominent trait in the American character. And I doubt it ever was, the United States being a nation borne of violent revolution and exceptionalism. My observations suggest that the rule of law is conveniently trotted out by political opponents of the ox to be gored, then stuffed back in the closet when one's own ox is ascendant. It was the Republicans acting holier-than-thou when the Democratic president committed perjury and now it is Democrats waving the rule of law banner over FISA. Personally, I think that the rule of law SHOULD apply to everyone, but I see little evidence that it is, and even less evidence that most people really want it that way. As for the FISA legislation, I have little doubt that the Administration's primary goal is to protect itself. Immunizing the telecoms will make the civil lawsuits disappear and allow Bush to keep secret what he has done, at least until Obama is elected. That said. I am not so sure that the telecoms don't have solid arguments in their defense. My guess -- and that's all it can be right now -- is that the Administration did indeed "instruct" the telecoms to comply. One can only imagine what assurances the Administration gave and what threats the Administration made. I certainly do want to know what really happened in this country after 9/11, what atrocities the Bush Administration visited upon us. But it is unfortunate, at best, that civil litigation may be the best way to achieve that goal.

You've done GREAT work on the FISA issue but life goes on. The fact is Americans are and have always been lawless. We simply pay lip service to the so-called rule of law as it pleases us for other reasons. For instance, you seem to have forgotten Bill Clinton in your survey of presidential law-breaking. . . . Oh, that's right: that's not what you mean by the rule of law. That was . . . a Democrat . . . it was just perjury . . . and only about sex . . . . Whatever. Face reality: the law in this country is a means not an end. Perhaps that is how it should be, perhaps not. But that's how it is.