"It later became clear that this controversial measure was being considered under a no-amendment "suspension" rule that required a two-thirds vote to pass, essentially dooming the Democrats' more moderate version. (Hill staffers say the rule was needed to prevent the Republicans from pushing an even worse alternative measure that could pass.)"

From the Art Levine article.

This is wrong. The Democratic leadership set up the votes which necessitated a 2/3 majority for the Democratic bill and a simple majority for the Republican alternative. This was another example of a fake or "show" vote. It allowed Democrats to vote for a bill they knew was going to be defeated and against a bill knowing it was going to pass. In this, they could have forced the Republicans to play by the same rules they did. They did not. If you are interested in a more detailed dicussion of the legislative history of the FISA votes, I recommend this diary by selise:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/9/175141/9215

Also while bloggers at yearlykos may not have been quick to pick up on the FISA controversy, there were many others of us out here who were raising the alarm.

I keep a list of Bush scandals. Anyway here is the entry on ElBaradei for general information. The Bush Administration has had it in for him for some time.

122. Bush tried unsuccessfully to kill the confirmation of Mohammed ElBaradei to a third term as head of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). ElBaradei and the IAEI had stated in the runup to the Iraq war that the famous aluminum tubes were for rockets not centrifuges, that the Niger documents were fakes, that there was no evidence that Iraq was trying to reconstitute a nuclear program, and that the Iraqis had been cooperative with IAEA inspections. As part of the Bush campaign in 2005 to oust him, the NSA tapped his phones in an unsuccessful attempt to show he was being soft on Iran. John Bolton unsuccessfully lobbied for more aggressive surveillance of him. ElBaradei was reconfirmed and later that same year won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Iraq debate last night was a case of false balance, something that it is becoming increasingly typical of that program. There were 2 pro-surge Republicans Boustany and Chris Shays, one pro-surge Democrat Brian Baird, and one anti-surge Democrat Schakowski. In other words, 3 pro-surge voices against one, albeit articulate, surge opponent.

The reason that Baird is catching a lot of flak is because his support of the surge is profoundly at odds with the platform he ran on to get re-elected, because it was supposedly the result of one of the those ridiculous propaganda pieces known as the dog and pony show (i.e. a trip to Iraq stage managed by the military), and because his brain can't seem to wrap itself around the notion of a quagmire, what it is and how to get out of it.

My suggestions for a title with apologies if they have been mentioned before:

Real men are Right

Real Fellas

Brokeback Mountain Men.

Who can resist weighing on a discussion of that Beltway Bubblehead the Babbling Brooks? Brooks is perniciious because he is so ubiquitous. He picks up his list of talking points from the White House each week and then very diligently proceeds to work them into each of that week's appearances and pieces. No matter how crazy or divorced from reality his views, he always acts like they are completely reasonable and held by all reasonable people. In this, he is far more deliberate and dishonest than most of the Beltway punditocracy. It is what makes his studied Everyman goofiness so grating to those who see through it.

He is an extreme case of the pundit as propagandist. A more general problem in the MSM is how they have so internalized White House talking points over the years that they can no longer report on stories without talking in them. Look at Iraq: the "surge", al Qaeda, sectarian violence, precipitate withdrawal, progress, listen to Petraeus. There is a whole vocabulary that the White House has created and which the media use to describe Iraq. What is described is not the actual situation there but the White House manufactured narrative on it. And it doesn't just happen with Iraq but on all policy issues. Beltway reporters and pundits speak in the language of White House spin. Some like Brooks do so deliberately, others do it because they are lazy, complacent, or stupid. The result is that the worst President in our history and one of the most disliked can still dominate the nation's political discourse.