I think the only way to defeat this is to pledge to not vote for any Democratic candidate in the presidential election if the Senate passes telecom immunity and blanket warrants. Also, lobby your friends to vote a third party or not at all. I think we'll have enough people to give Republicans the crucial advantage in November. The Democrats will then have another four years to meditate on where they want to position themselves. Oh, and we need to call the leadership and the Democratic campaigns today to let them know that we are prepared to make them lose these crucial three percent.

The more convinced that what's motivating Reid and Rockefeller more than anything is a simple desire for this whole issue to go away. As was mentioned upthread, they were probably briefed on the NSA program early in its run and didn't object when they had the chance. Now it would seem that EFF vs ATT is in a position to uncover the whole termite nest and they'd rather that didn't happen.

The confidence they feel over the prospect of a Dem ending up in the White House is probably firming up their resolve even more. After all, if the big prize is theirs anyway, why risk any more chips?

Jay Rockefeller made a big show of demanding to see the secret documents authorizing warrantless wiretapping before he would consider granting immunity to the telecoms and to the Administration.

Then, he ceded his chairmanship to Kit Bond, who "negotiated" a "compromise" with the Administration. The "compromise" was that the Administration would let some member of Rockefeller's (oops, I mean Bond's) committee see the secret documents only after Bond had crafted (and Rockefeller has consented to) a bill to grant immunity to the telecoms and to the Administration.

This is the sort of thing that leads some observers of Jay Rockefeller to refer to him as "Jello Jay".

http://nytimes.com/2007/10/20/us/nationalspecial3/20nsa.html

[...] Last June, in a phone conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney, John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, set down his conditions for revising the law governing the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping. Only when the committee got access to secret administration documents authorizing surveillance without court warrants, Mr. Rockefeller told the vice president, would it consider such legislation.

[...] The bill is a long way from becoming law. The House Intelligence Committee, and the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House, have not been allowed to see the secret documents: President Bush’s orders authorizing the program, and Justice Department opinions laying out its legal basis. And White House officials are being coy about whether those committees will get access.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said Friday that the Senate Intelligence Committee had gained access to the documents only after its leaders had indicated that they would grant immunity to the phone and Internet companies.

“To the extent of anyone else being able to see the documents,” Ms. Perino said, “I think that we’ll wait and see who else is willing to include that provision in the bill.”

[...] The White House negotiated the bill primarily through Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the leading Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a staunch ally in efforts to broaden the N.S.A.’s wiretapping authority. Officials said that while Mr. Rockefeller had had some direct dealings with the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and other administration officials, it was Mr. Bond who had acted as the main liaison to the White House on the issue. [...]

- - New York Times 10/20/2007

PLEASE let there be largescale civil unrest!

Or maybe they think investigating the Bush administration is a loser politically, (another myth they appear to believe), or, more likely, they fear some sort of exacerbation of the already extreme political polarization in this country, leading to -- God forbid -- some sort of civil unrest?

I WANT massive, widespread and uncontrolled civil unrest. I WANT to totally collapse the house of cards that is our current unsustainable war "economy". I WANT to totally collapse the system of government as it now stands. Simply voting for DLC dems (ie, the rightwing of the GOP) or Republicans (the Reichwing of the GOP) will NOT change anything. "Working within the system" CANNOT work because the system itself is corrupt and broken. You cannot turn a corrupt politician (or Congress, White House, and Judicial branch FULL of corrupt criminals) good by polling or phoning or faxing him/her. You can only fix things by UN-seating them all, which can't happen because the voting system is corrupted as is the candidate selection process. That leaves massive civil unrest and collapsing the whole shebang.

Sure, it will hurt but what comes out of it could/would be BETTER. ANYTHING that hurts them ALL (Bush, Cheney, Hadley, McConnell, Hatch, Rockefeller, Reid, Pelosi, Emmanuel Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein...the entire lot of them...is a good thing in and of itself.

Please please please can we FINALLY have much-deserved and long overdue civil unrest? As far as I can see it really is the only way to actually have a chance of actually changing ANYTHING.

The strategy adopted by the Clinton campaign--of blurring the differences between Clinton and Obama, going negative, and introducing identity politics--is a winning strategy. Obama may win SC, but the Clinton campaign is going to paint that as a "black" victory. And, as Mark Kleiman (via Kevin Drum) points out (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/01/obama_and_the_telecom_amnesty_bill.php

The basic fact Obama confronts is that if the campaign becomes racial, he loses, while if it becomes gendered, Hillary wins. Not a good hand to play, once the Clinton machine decided to bring up race and gender at every opportunity.

Obama needs to change the subject, and he needs to reverse Clinton's blurring him into a DLC candidate, just like she is (and may well be. I have no idea about any of these three people.)

Obama needs to go to Washington, get in that well, and stand for something that will get him above the muck, change the subject and establish some progressive cred. He can steal from Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric. He can reach across to conservatives who believe in the COnstitution. and he run against the evil ways of the Washington backroom, proclaiming change.

It's pre-Superbowl time, so an analogy is apt. One of the things that Bill Parcels recognized (perhaps coming from his defensive coordinator, who is said to have read an American Economics Review article on the subject) that if you're outside the 25 on fourth down, and you're trying to win the game, the best strategy is to go for it. Kicking a field goal is trying not to be second guessed.

Obama's at the 35, 4th and 6, fourth quarter down by 6. He needs to play boldly, or he is not gonna win.

Get on that plane, Senator.