People who try to cover up their fear of looking weak don't look strong, they look like people who are trying to cover up their fear of looking weak.

The only way to look strong is to be strong, and that requires acting on the courage of your convictions despite your fear.

Where are you Martin Luther King? America turns its lonely eyes to you.

In 2004 my president told me that anytime I hear my government talking about wiretap, it requires a court order to do so, and that nothing had changed on that in hunting down terrorists. He further assured me that constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to protecting the country because he and his administration value the constitution.

Two or so months ago, I received the American Community Survey, which is a survey from the Census Bureau (operates under the U.S. Department of Commerce) containing scores of extraordinarily invasive questions - including detailed information on all aspects of your housing, emotional/physicial/mental health and marital history - that supposedly replaced the long census form that was roundly criticized in 2000. Enclosed with the survery was a letter informing me that response is required by law, quoting Title and Section numbers that provide for fines of various amounts for one’s failure either to respond or to respond in good faith.

In addition to describing the various ways that this information would greatly assist my country, my government, my community and even employers in various ways, the Census Bureau assured that all information about me and other respondents is held strictly confidential, and that any Census Bureau employee who violates these provisions is subject to possibly heavy fines and/or lengthy jail sentences. Since I received the first letter, I have received three or four other mailings, have had numerous contacts by phone and even had a Bureau representative show up on my doorstep in order to get me to respond, always assuring me my information is held in the strictest of confidence. (The survey and the aggressive tactics are matters for another comment.)

Most of the regulars here know where this is going. If my president assures me he is obeying the law, and it turns out not only that he has broken the law, but also that he expects a pass on the lawbreaking for himself and everyone he has involved, how am I to have any confidence whatsoever from that point forward when the Census Bureau or any other part of the government points to the law to try to assure me that my privacy or other rights will be protected?

Retroactive immunity for lawbreaking is almost unprecedented. Congress, please don’t respond to radicalism with more radicalism.

The Cato Institute took Bill Clinton to task in 1997 with their policy analysis #271.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html

I could never understand why Clinton moved so aggressively in creating a network like this, it was either for true criminal investigation, or for national security, then again you have to look at motive when you try to figure out these matters, could it be that we have discovered the perfect spy network for advancing science and business? do we keep ourselves on the cutting edge of technology by doing this and pass it off as something else?

You have to consider the absurd here when there have been no reports of conviction or discovery of terrorist activity anywhere for the thirteen or so years this project has been around.

There are so many answers that legislators owe the public, answers we are not likely to ever get. I pulled this off the open secrets website earlier and although it doesn't give an entirely clear picture you can see where labor has not competed as well as business in padding the pocketbooks of Congress.

2003-2008 PAC contribution breakdown

Pelosi business $ 503,200 68.5%

Labor $ 210,000 28.6%

Hoyer Business $ 1, 006,256 83.9%

Labor $ 160,253 13.9%

Emmanuel Business $ 391,416 83.8%

Labor $ 67,000 14.3%

Reid Business $ 2, 053,010 79.4%

Labor 386,500 14.0%

Durbin Business $ 914,099 71.8%

Labor 190,300 14.9%

Schumer Business $ 615,232 65.6%

Labor $ 188,250 20.1%

Clinton Business $ 1, 182,428 55.3%

Labor $ 795,885 23.4%

1990-2004 PAC breakdown

Edwards Business $ 7550 83.4%

Labor $ 0

Obama Business $ 673,953 54.7%

Labor $ 287,400 23.3%

I hope these numbers post ok they usually don't unless you use a spreadsheet and I don't think Salon can accommodate one. There is a lot to think about here.

Posted something like what you say at dkos. I will be following up with the email firedog provided.

The telecoms wouldn't go bankrupt and thus wouldn't disrupt the economy.

Nobody except the White House has to spend all their money on lawyers.

The suit wouldn't drag on forever.

The real villains in the White House would finally get the justice they deserve.

Thadeus Crumb wrote: The basic concept is: "Bush has been given enormous powers to spy on you, your e-mail, and your phone calls, to fight terrorism. He wants more. He wants to be able to do it without ever telling anyone, like a court, who he spied on, why, and what he learned. That's Un-American in the extreme and is asking too much, especially for a President who's lied to the American people so much, and about issues of life and death, so often that we no longer trust him at all".

Agreed.

But in the back of the Democrats minds is: “If a bomb goes off, and we have voted against Telecom immunity, then we’ll be crucified by the media and the Republicans.”

So the Democrats need to powerfully weave a narrative that pre-empts all that.

They could say, “Terrorism is a low risk, and it is not worth sacrificing our long-term liberties to avoid an unlikely, but possible, short-term terrorist attack. We do not even have to sacrifice our liberties. But in the unlikely event of a bomb going off, we have to be willing to say that we are not going to change America in response. We are going to take it on the chin as the price of freedom.”

Etcetera.

How do you think that will go down with the voters, the Republicans, and the media? Personally, I think it needs a charismatic leader to pull it off.

Complicit is the word Glenn, not weak.

Glenn, you now use the word "oligarchy" quite often. You posit that the explanation for the dems lack of action on anything of substance, is that they are worried about looking "weak on terror", despite "empirical" evidence that this is not the case. I am certain the dems are well aware of that evidence, yet choose to support bsuh anyway, so fear is not a good explanation. Is not the existence of an actual oligarchy/tyranny a better explanation for their lack of action? Do you not at least admit the possibility that democracy has virtually ended in America?

A lot of people here got peeved at me around your last FISA article, when I asked, "Why are you people so happy?" just because Dodd got up on his hind legs for a couple of hours? I was not optimistic then and still less now.

Impeachment is off the Democrat table despite a long list of buhs war crimes, lies, et al. The dems were expressly elected to end the war and then approved a surge! The list of atrocities committed upon your Constitution and Bill of Rights, is long and growing. Where is the representation? Where is the democracy? I don't see it. It's simply not there!

FISA will pass and pass just the way the bsuh/cheney junta wants it to!

FISA is needed to shut down whats left of "freedom" in America. If you don't believe me, give Gore Vidal a call. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4336.htm

And if you really need evidence for the coming gloves off tyranny, please explain how democrats could sponsor legislation like the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" of 2007 - a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). Some, myself included, believe that it will be used to criminalize political speech. Just watch.

And in answer to today's question, which I assume was itself rhetorical, no they won't. Why should they, it's not like a unitary President is accountable to the peasants - or anyone.