What you smell is my fear that another neocon will be elected president, especially given the complicity of the MSM (why I read GG in the first place). I take nothing for granted.

Then you should work on getting Mitofsky to agree to public exit poll data this time around, work your butt off to get rid of electronic voting machines, and watch the absentee balloting very, very closely, especially the overseas vote, now that they are under surveillance, and could either be pressured, or have their votes delivered late, based on the contents of their email and phone calls.

Did you know that the American elections principally those in 2000 and 2004, are the only ones in the world in which the exit polls differed from the vote, and the reason was not ascribed to voting irregularities? Did you know that agreement of vote tallies with exit polls is how international observers designate elections as free and fair? Did you know that Mitofsky stated that it was the media contributors (all the networks, cable networks, and major newspapers) that owned the exit polling data and that since it was their IP it could not be released?

What strategy would it be that the Democrats are so craftily pursuing that feeds into allowing theft of the 2008 election by their opponents? The base was energized in 2004, Kerry gave in to a vote-switched result in Ohio without a fight.

He also says we are basically screwed but...

SCOTUS nominees and federal bench appointments are something to consider. No?

Courts will set the constitutional contours and limits of the National Surveillance State, but Congress and military and civilian bureaucracies within the Executive branch will actually develop most of its governing apparatus. Although the Republican Party has had the first crack at shaping the institutions and practices of the National Security State, both parties will eventually play a role, they will simply advocate somewhat different versions. How the National Surveillance State develops will depend on the contingencies of politics and the results of future elections, which, of course, will produce new judicial appointments. The courts will bless and legitimate these developments, much as they legitimated the rise of the administrative and regulatory state and the National Security State in the middle of the twentieth century.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=930514

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/08/party-of-fear-party-without-spine-and.html

Can anyone tell me if this bill gives King George a free pass in regard to his previous (admitted) violations of the FISA Act?

My second question is: What are the chances that the Democrats will somehow grow spines in the next six months and refuse to reauthorize this dreadful assault on the Constitution?

Apparently your intellect is beyond my capacity for understanding in that your references make little sense to one such as myself.

My simple point is that the Democratic leadership is a symbol of the entire ruling class of the party: craven and weak.

Should I consider citing you in the future I will consider the convolutions of your prose before doing so.

My most humble apologies.

Ed Richter

Let me get this straight. They are the "craven and weak ruling class" controlling your life and my intellect is convoluted? Maybe it's your intellect that is craven ansd weak and they are just very clever and meaner than you. Go back to your library, professor, You won't get hurt in there unless you have some kiddie porn or something.

wow...nice and classy--hope everyone else is as surprised by that one...

go fuck yourself asshole.

Glenn says:

“Wouldn't the most basic rationality compel Democrats to draw the conclusion that this rank Terrorism fear-mongering does not actually work? Yet here they are, after refusing to legalize warrantless eavesdropping prior to their midterm victory, allowing this legislation to pass now that they are in the majority.”

The real issue is that it will CONTINUE to work with some of these people. It’s like trying to rationalize the inexplicable. I realize it’s frustrating to watch; but I see it as kind of a “genetic” issue. A majority in either or both houses cannot immediately counter a trend of this duration. Reactionary politicians have gotten the country to this point by relentless pursuit of their agenda since the defeat of Barry Goldwater. Unfortunately, any effort at a meaningful and swift reversal is unrealistic, and still affected by two problems:

1. The lack of a coherent and consistent progressive position on most major issues

2. The illusory effect of the temporary success of the DLC’s “Conservative Light” posture as represented by the election of the Clinton administration.

There is still no consensus within the current Democratic Party on problem number 1. Meanwhile we continue to see the residual effect of DLC DNA on major issues as reflected by the votes of elected officials who, by virtue of their election, were presumed to represent real change. Conservative extremists, in pursuit of their ambitions, were willing to accept and use setbacks to further their aims. Due to problem number 1 and the residual effect of DLC DNA, Democrats, seemingly, are currently unwilling to take that risk.

If this is seen as a long-term process, all may not be lost. There are some who apparently understand the stakes.

Silvestre Reyes (Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) on why NO should have been the vote:

http://wwwc.house.gov/reyes/news_detail.asp?id=1187

Dailykos identified the others who voted no:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/135849/2311

But for the short term, it’s clear there will be more of this since; unfortunately, it’s how the “two party system” currently works:

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2003/trall030510.gif

And then there are the “yes” votes. Should they be targeted as if their votes represent conclusive markers for DLC DNA matches? Will the process be helped by challenging the seats of these people?

Surely not, unless they can be effectively contested in their State or District primaries by someone clearly more enlightened and progressive. A part of any challenge needs to be an effective test for DLC DNA. Meanwhile, the people who caved should be contacted by their constituents. At least we know who they are in the Senate:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/4/04858/29657

So what does it all mean and where is it heading?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/112014/4230

Nothing will help much until problem number 1 above is solved. When that’s fixed, problem number 2 should eventually take care of itself.