Can anyone honestly recall anyone ever talking about the USA as the or a "homeland" before 9/11?

No, never. It would be really interesting to find out where that particular terminology came from.

"Home-land, Home-land, Nine-eleven..." (to the tune of Deustchland Uber Alles)

There needs to be a word that combines "sanctimonious" and "authoritarian," like one of those marvelous German compound words.

I thought that word was "Santorum"!

I understand that the Intel Fisa bill has been prevented from coming to a vote. How is this technique different than what occurred to the Judiciary Fisa bill. Can't that bill come back up for debate?

Remember Glenn---even the smallest victory is a large step forward from where we were. There is more work to be done, but aT least smile and realize you're making a difference today.

So WHAT'S NEXT??

I don't think I'll be able to stand watching it. Well, not without a barfbag close by anyway.

I'm not going to watch although I do want to watch the Dem response by the Kansas female governor. She learned how to win in a Repug state. Doubt it will be any where as hard hitting as Sen. Webb last year.

I thought I heard McConnell say that there might be a few days extension. That tells me that they want some amendments in their favor if the weaker Dems go along. Maybe Reid and others are finally tired of bullying and will do something to stand up to the bully instead of just using words and then caving.

I thought I heard McConnell say that there might be a few days extension. That tells me that they want some amendments in their favor if the weaker Dems go along. Maybe Reid and others are finally tired of bullying and will do something to stand up to the bully instead of just using words and then caving.

I heard McConnell say that, too, but am not sure how that can be. The Feb. 1 expiration of the PAA is a law. Thus, to change it, a new law has to be enacted - meaning the Senate and House must pass an identical extension and then send it to the President for signature.

The House is only in session tomorrow, then gone for the rest of the week. They plan to vote tomorrow on a 30-day extension (and it seems like it will pass), which means it will then be sent to the Senate.

So, unless House Republicans succeed in passing, say, a 5- or 10-day extension, then I don't see how there can be short extension of the type McConnell seemed to suggest.

I think it will be very entertaining to watch tonight. Bush finally just got a big dose of his own medicine and it happened just a few hours before his big speech. This is his final chance to tell us what a great president he has been and to list his amazing accomplishments.

Should be a very short speech.

i didn't get my wish, exactly, that this would begin the revolution of wisdom in washington ... but ... it does strike me that by dem/indy voter turnouts and the popularity of "change" messages and reform messages by all dem candidates ... that the dem rebuttal should be a strong and persuasive one. i think (i hope) the tide is turning.

voter turnout and the popularity of change messages /seems/ to indicate to the hiding-rabbit-democrats that they can be popular and principled ... and retort an emotionally charged argument.

i believe!

If the PAA expires, surely Bush wouldn't try yet another bit of "magic" with Executive Orders and cook up his own extension, would he? (Of course, I realize there is no legal or Constitutional basis for him doing this, but that hasn't stopped him in the past.)

Sorry if this has already been covered in this or some other thread, but can anyone here explain how the Republicans have been "blocking" amendments to the FISA legislation as they seem to have been able to do last week?

Sorry, Santorum already has another definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28sexual_neologism%29

You'd hope so ... it is kinda important!

Bond is correct that the FISA court is not suitable to litigation as the only party allowed to submit information is the Govt.

However, the federal courts are historically very well able to deal with issues that must be kept secret while dealing with litigation [2-sided]; through in-camera review of documents, for example, as to extent of secrecy necessary. That is currently the case with the ongoing litigation and it scares the crap out of the admin because the fed judiciary has allowed the liutigatino to proceed - and in certain cases has demanded that the govt produce docs.

In every single case litigated - whether telecoms or military tribunals or whatever - the govt argument has been that (a) the issue at hand is out of the jurisdiction of the fed courts, and moreover (b) that the courts have no power to decide whether they have the power to determine a jurisdiction Q at all - as only the executive should be deciding what is or is not even within the courts' jurisdiction.

Thus in this case, the executive I beliueve holds that the issue is not properly within the fed courts at all but only within FISA - which cannot deal with litigation. Get it? Its we win because we win.

Sorry if this has already been covered in this or some other thread, but can anyone here explain how the Republicans have been "blocking" amendments to the FISA legislation as they seem to have been able to do last week?

That's a good question and I've been trying to find out the answer. But as I understand it, any Senator can file a Motion for Cloture at any time, to reqiure that the Senate vote on the bill that's on the floor. If it passes, then it passes. If it doesn't, then they go back to where they were before that happened (considering amendments).

I don't think the GOP so much as "blocked consideration of the amendments" as they ran and filed a Cloture Motion before the amendments could be considered.