The authority to conduct border searches in spite of the 4th Amendment stems from the government's necessity to physically protect its borders and people from harmful things or people coming in. I do think this difference is essential enough to constitutionally distinguish eavesdropping from border searching regarding the 4th Amendment. -- DCLaw1

I appreciate the reply and understand the distinction you illustrate. How does that distinction hold up in the face of decisions to allow searches of laptops at the border without a warrant?

Greysky:

What Democrats *add* is the politics of hope, not fear. That is, increased/enhanced use of diplomacy, negotiating, etc. Not just the neocon - use brute force, and if brute force doesn't work then use more brute force.

-

I am keeping my fingers crossed that one of the Democratic presidential candidates will win in November '08. But I don't think it's inevitable. All it would take is one domestic terrorist attack and all bets are off as to who would be elected president in '08.

The Democratic base is energized. I don't want to see Democrats do anything to energize the *Republican* base.

This is very, very interesting. In the first paragraph above, you assert that the Democrats are the party of hope, not fear. Then, in the very next paragraph, you show that this is precisely the opposite, and that you believe in that philosophy. You tremble about the possibility of another attack, and that "all bets are off" for the election if an attack occurs. You fear - so intensely I can nearly smell it through this website - that bold moves by the Democrats might energize the Republican Party.

In short, your every instinct, like so many Democrats, is to think first of how the Republicans might spin a potential Democratic course of action, and to speculate on all the worst-case scenarios that might make the Democrats look bad.

Republicans may be the Party of Invoking Fear, but your approach is in line with the Party of Being Afraid.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070805.html

I keep harping back to Israel's Labor party eperience. The more it tried to become Likud Lite, the more it capitulated to the right wing and adopted their policies and attitudes, the weaker and more despised it became. When it lost its way and principles, it also lost most of its core constituency and the respect of the public. It is still blamed by the Right for every terror attack and is still labeled by the Right wing as soft and weak on natural security. What would it take for the Democratic leadership to realize that capitulation and abandonment of principles(or do they have any?) is the surest way to defeat?

I'm amazed at those who are so eager to exonerate the Democratic leadership here. The Republicans have spent all year IN THE MINORITY blocking the Democrats from doing much of anything. Yet the Democrats are IN THE MAJORITY and control Congress and yet when Congress does something like this, there are no shortage of people who want to claim that the poor Democrats had no choice and had no ability to prevent this from happening.

GlennGreenwald

During the first six years of this misbegotten shame, the Republicans held the majority in both houses by less margin than the Democrats now have. If the Democrats were passing fantastic legislation week after week and President Bush was vetoing it, they would have an argument about the veto-proof majority. But they aren't. They are passing President Bush's unitary executive power expansions by 60-28 majorities. My own senator, Dianne Feinstein not only voted for the legislation, she provided political cover for others, like Jim Webb, who cited her expertise on why he should vote for it. She doesn't lack clout, she lacks morals.

P.S. Anybody know if there was a signing statement this morning, and what it said?

"If the Democrats suck so bad, where are you going to go? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Democrats had little to gain and a lot to lose by going against the administration on these particular votes. While they currently have the edge in the presidential horserace at the moment, why do a lot of grandstanding now and hand the Republicans raw-meat ammo? Unh-unh."

Should the dems have used the power of the purse to force a withdrawal from Iraq?

Readers who are interested can check the voting records (& also get a Progressive Score) of any Congressperson via ProgressivePunch.com.

Below is the introduction on their front page:

"ProgressivePunch is a non-partisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a Progressive perspective. But we're convinced it's extremely useful irrespective of anyone's political positions.

We show the performance of members within 160 different issue categories, and detailed vote descriptions, thereby empowering you to zero in on what matters to you."

I've found it to be a useful tool.

If the Democrats suck so bad, where are you going to go? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Democrats had little to gain and a lot to lose by going against the administration on these particular votes. While they currently have the edge in the presidential horserace at the moment, why do a lot of grandstanding now and hand the Republicans raw-meat ammo? Unh-unh.

I can't comment on GG's suggestion - frankly, it's over my head as a lay person. And I will surmise, if I don't get it - would the average American voter? For Democrats, would it play in Peoria? I kinda doubt it. But I'll do my homework and try to understand it better.

No president can ever take hypothetical military action off the table. Using the military is not just a neocon policy. What Democrats *add* is the politics of hope, not fear. That is, increased/enhanced use of diplomacy, negotiating, etc. Not just the neocon - use brute force, and if brute force doesn't work then use more brute force.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that one of the Democratic presidential candidates will win in November '08. But I don't think it's inevitable. All it would take is one domestic terrorist attack and all bets are off as to who would be elected president in '08.

The Democratic base is energized. I don't want to see Democrats do anything to energize the *Republican* base.