Anonymous ones, but still:

Sceptical

I think if the Dems had wanted to make it perfectly clear to the American public that they were against the MCA but that they wern't the least bit soft on terrorism they could have--even in 2006.

Seems sensible, no?

I think the reason they hid out is because they aren't really against the PA or the MCA.

But not only do you have no evidence to support this, there is clear evidence to the contrary: the majority of Democrats voted against destroying Habeas Corpus, as Glenn noted:

It is true that most Democrats in both the House and Senate ultimately voted against this law (though 12 Democratic Senators out of 44 voted in favor). But even among the Senate Democrats who did vote against its enactment, many of them did not even reveal how they would vote until -- literally -- the very day before the vote occurred, and many such Democratic Senators announced their opposition only once it became clear that it would pass.

It's not convictions that are lacking. It's the courage of those convictions.

I believe we're delusional if we think a Dem President is going to overturn the PA and the MCA.

And I think you're delusional to assert opinions in direct contradiction of known facts. That's a pretty good indication of delusion where I come from.

This isn't a bad republican /good democrat issue. We have become a security state and the dems are just as big a part of it as anyone else.

We've been a securtiy state since the early Cold War. And Democrats have certainly played a major role in that. But Democrats have usually done this out of (rightly or wrongly) perceived necessity, and have frequently sought to keep some system of checks and balances in place, even behind closed doors. Republicans almost without exception have routinely supported the destruction of checks and balances in the name of security.

These are two very different mindsets. While I'm opposed to the Democratic security state mindset--which traces back to Truman--I recognize that it has at least some semblance of a basis in reality, and some semblance of a concern to retain checks and balances, as well as accountabiity. This means that it is, by itself, open to rational argumentation, at least in part.

The dominant Republican mindset, in contrast, is totally off the map. Security is merely a cover for everything mendacious they've ever wanted to do, and they are utterly immune to any rational or moral persuasion. There's no better proof of it than Arlen Specter pretending to fix things when he's actually aiding and abetting the process of destroying fundamental liberties. Republicans who actually oppose this have left the party in droves--the most recent notable example being Pete McClosky, whose family has been prominant in Calfornia state GOP politics since the late 1800s.

It is absolutely crucial to understand the difference between these two mindsets because one cannot possibly reverse this trend is one does not understand what one is fighting against. Let's not forget, the Democrats gave us the Church Committee and its investigations, and when they did so, they set a tone which gave us the original FISA law with virtually no opposition. It was not the best law, IMHO. But it did strictly limit government power when it came to people who had done nothing whatsoever to merit government surveillance. The movement conservative/GOP response was to launch a vicious counter-attack, and install the Iran/Contra Reagan Regime. And you want to pretend there's no difference?

You are a troll of the first order. No evidence at all, just pure counter-factual assertion. A "more left than thou" superficial appearance, but with the net effect of discouraging, disoerienting, and demobilizing any possible effective counter-organizing.

Eat your heart out, shooter, RealLame, Elephantman, etc. This is how real trolling is done!

I gonna get in a heap of trouble for reading at the wild Salon.

Do you give tardy notes for reasons a person is AWOL from other dirty (good dirt) fields. I gonna get in much probable-mentor, irritable people again. Muy gracious. Send it snail mail and seal with yellow bees-wax. Seal with a kiss? Never-mind. Defer.

Once I got a sheriff notice to stop annoying bankers. I still have it. It has a hair (public?) stuck to the scotch tape that stuck on my front frown door. You may use duck tape but don't leave hairs...I must get, damn quack lawyers! They ruin careers in all other fields.

But these are the kinds of stories I want to see much more of in the run-up to 2008.

There were plenty of these statements in the run-up to 2006. The GOP made the Democrats' opposition to detention, torture and warrantless eavesdropping a major theme in their campaign. The overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against detention, torture and warrantless eavesdropping weeks before the election, and Rove made that a major campaign issue.

How did that work out? Maybe if you click the heels together a few more times, it'll work this time.

This is a great post, as usual, Glenn. But part of this comment is really unfair:

Nobody is suggesting that the enactment of this bill would be some cure-all or would satisfy those who make grand systemic critiques of America (if anything would ever be satisfactory).

You're using amphiboly here to tar folks like me as unreasonable.

First, to the issue of reasonability. Sure, there are some systemic critics who are unreasonable. But these are usually quite concentrated in sectarian organizations and their fronts. Those of us who choose to participate in the mainstream electoral political process are by-in-large quite different, and I'd hope you've had enough exposure to us in your comment threads to know it.

Now, to the amphiboly. It's a logical fallacy that depends on exploiting two different senses of the same word, phrase or longer passage. In this case, it refers to two senses of anything ever being satisfactory. In one sense, of course, no limited corrective action, however laudible, will ever be satisfactory for one who makes systemic critiques. One can always do more, always do better. And what could be more American than this sort of restless, make-the-world-over attitude???

But not being satisfied in this larger sense is hardly the same thing as not taking satisfaction in a job well done when specific evils are remedied. Indeed, the secret to lifelong struggle for a better, more just world is precisely the capacity to take pleasure and find satisfaction in the littler victories along the way.

I don't expect you to ever convert to my way of thinking. Nor would I really want it, in fact. Systematic critics need folks like you to contend with, as one way of keeping ourselves honest, of preventing ourselves from getting too carried away with ourselves. (Fighting the little fights, for things that will never satisfy us, is another way we do this, btw.)

But I do hope--and expect--you to gain a better appreciation of my way of thinking.

In fact, I think you already do. I think you were just a tad irritated in the moment, that's all. But I wanted to use the occassion to address something that I think is clearly there beneath the surface for a lot of people. And I beg your indulgence for having done so.