If we had a liberal media, or for that matter an honest one, something like the following would be on the news this evening.

"Today, Vice President Cheney, speaking before a friendly audience at the American Enterprise Institute," (camera shows sneering Cheney and then pans overwhelmingly, white, male audience) "and threatened Americans with an imaginary Muslim plot to turn the whole world into a seventh-century caliphate." (camera shows women in burqas)

"The reason for the vice president's speech was to provide misleading talking points regarding the government's illegal and unconstitutional program to tap the telephones and read the email of ordinary Americans." (camera shows fancy headquarters of ATT and Verizon)

"Cheney argued that these companies, prohibited by law from providing customers' personal information to the government ever since widespread abuses were exposed in the 1970's, would refuse to help the government protect Americans if forced to defend themselves for their crimes. Of course, these companies happily complied, and were lavishly compensated, until recently when yet another Bush administration SNAFU led to late payment, and the telecoms cut off the government, as they would any other customer."

(ATT disconnect notice flashes on screen, then fades to Bush speech in 2004 about wiretapping)

"Of course, since the Bush administration is fully aware that that such spying is illegal, and Bush loudly and flatly denied such conduct had occurred as late as 2004, most people believe that the administration is really concerned about its own legal liability, and the telecoms supposed plight is just another in a long line of administration smokescreens."

(camera shows Colin Powell holding up bag of white powder)

And now, the weather.....

If Reid actually goes through with this, against overwhelming public opinion, against the Constitution, then it proves that he does not fear the average American.

It proves that $$$ is more valuable than votes.

We need to not only throw the corrupt bribe-takers out, but redistrict the eloctoral map so that they do not have such comfortable seats that they feel so immune to the voters' beliefs.

We also need to fully fund elections to restore the vote to pre-eminence over the $.

is that even just symbolic intervention by any one of the big three candidates could be all that is needed to prevent retroactive immunity from being passed. Chris Dodd and the few other brave souls in the Senate need moral support.

An unequivocal endorsement by any of the three Democratic contenders would infuse these holdouts with an enormous boost of salience and weight. Harry Reid, consummate milquetoast institutional conformist that he is, would suddenly "discover" another way of approaching the FISA legislation.

Here's what I think I heard this evening on C-SPAN, from Harry Reid on the Senate floor:

1. There will only be a couple of hours of debate tomorrow morning (sometime after 9:30 a.m.) on the Senate Judiciary Committee's amendment offered by Patrick Leahy today, which would substitute an immunity-free version of a FISA bill, including a number of amendments to the spying provisions, for the Senate Intelligence Committee's immunity-laden bill that is already the "regular order" of the Senate (S. 2248). Leahy's amendment would need 51 Senators approving to pass, or 60 Senators if the Republicans filibuster, which they would, unless Reid helps them to avoid that - see #2. There will be other amendments offered as well, including one from Sheldon Whitehouse.

2. If I can believe my ears, Reid then went on to matter-of-factly state that the Leahy (SJC) amendment would then (after a short debate on Thursday) be "tabled" (killed)... Here's Rule XXII of the Senate (see Paragraph 1):

Http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php

As I understand a motion to table, it is used when a committee (or majority leader) is opposed to an amendment, and wants to "efficiently" dispose of the measure, and the motion to table is nondebatable. It may be asserted against a motion to amend (i.e., the Senate Judiciary version of the FISA bill, in this case). It takes priority over other amendments or debates, and is considered in advance of the underlying, pending amendment to which it is applied. Only if it fails (by simple majority) does debate and action on the underlying amendment continue; otherwise, it stops debate on, and disposes of the amendment with prejudice.

If I heard this right, this is Harry Reid flexing his muscles and playing hardball against Chris Dodd and our Constitution, on behalf of Dick Cheney, the Republican Party, and powerful lawbreaking corporations, among others, and all the Senators know this is coming tomorrow (including Obama and Clinton).

I also heard about the last 10 minutes of Chris Dodd on the Senate floor this evening, quoting James Madison and passionately standing his ground. [Cardin also spoke - not sure what he's up to, though. Bond and Rockefeller were also scheduled to speak before the Senate adjourned at about 7:40 p.m., ET.] Dodd is prepared to do everything he can tomorrow to stop the Intelligence Committee bill, and is urging his colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to stand with him to uphold the rule of law. Dodd pointed out that he has never conducted a filibuster before in his entire Senate career.

Dianne Feinsten spoke earlier this afternoon about this issue (I don't know what she said). She is a pivot point in this debate (or was in December), and apparently still has an amendment or two which may affect how things shake out on the underlying bill. [In December, if her proposed immunity amendment didn't pass, she stated she would oppose the SIC bill, which was a turnaround from her vote in the intelligence committee itself.]

The fix, however, may already be in.

P.S. Calling data is defined under FISA (aka, the law) as "content."

To really experience disempowerment? Try spending an afternoon at a Massachusetts registry for motor vehicles.

I'm not surprised. Olbermann's good, but there's the matter of a paycheck.

I'm tired, though, of the O'Reilly stuff, both from his own hideous face, and from Olbermann's nightly "feud" with him. O'Reilly's an ass who shouldn't be on radio OR television...if we ever make it through this alive, somehow we have to find a way of ensuring that. (I won't rest until every Fox News idiot is just a loudmouthed drunk at the local bar, like they usedta be in the good ol' days!)