Politicians go where there bread is buttered. They (rightly) believe that campaign contributions directly affect their probability of being elected. Therefore, taking an untoward position on a bill which doesn't receive a lot of attention is relatively low risk. A campaign to expose the position increases his risk, so may be effective. Offering campaign contributions if the proper position is taken provides additional incentive. (I believe that was directly responsible for Edward's belated stance on telecom immunity.)

For the record, 2008 campaign contributions for Carney (through March 3):

Clear Channel Communications $500

Comcast Corp $10,000

National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $5,000

AT&T Inc $2,000

Embarq Corp $1,000

National Telephone Cooperative Assn $1,000

Verizon Communications $1,000

Courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics.

where their bread is buttered. I can't even mix my metaphors right. ugh.

You have to remember, the Founders didn't trust government or governors because both were notoriously bad in those days. So they set up the Constitution so that incompetent or dishonest politicians wouldn't be able to do too much damage.

Those were the bad old days. Now we have a government that has been refined by decades of liberal reform and conservative think tanks. It's nice and safe. We can trust it. It's the outsiders that we can't trust.

At the same time, those were the good old days, too. The Founders didn't have to deal with terrorists---they WERE terrorists. They had no notion of security. Now we are frightened suburbanites. (Check any census.)

That's why, now that we are now facing a threat that---as only a counterterrorism expert like Carney can tell you---is worse than any we have faced, because it's posed by terrorists, we can't be restrained by antique laws that assume we are dishonest, when it is clear others are dishonest.

And it's vital we protect our national security industry/apparatus so that it can protect our grandchildren, the way our Constitution no longer can.

For the record, 2008 campaign contributions for Carney (through March 3):

Those are not particularly large numbers. It should be possible for a progressive campaign against him to raise at least as much money. I leave it to his constituents to do their patriotic duty.

please report to the guantanamo ward. we know something. thought you'd want to know. calling all shooters, please report to the guantanamo ward.

I was expecting FISA to come up again. The administration went too nuts about it last time: when you have your AG go on the stump and flat out lie about it, they are worried, as are Rockefeller and others involved, more than likely. These feeble-minded One Percent Solutionists panicked and said to hell with our rights, laws and constitution.

The irony of all this is that damned if one of my few political contributions thus far in 2008 is probably going to wind up benefiting some Republican Neanderthal for whom I’d never vote in a million years. But as Yellow Dog and others noted so well, if my representatives are willing to take down my rights and my country right along with it, then I’d rather have it done by the real thing than the one in sheep’s clothing.

Rhetorical question. There are no Red Dogs because the GOP political strategy doesn't tolerate them. The GOP believe that, to be effective, their votes must be all signal, and very little noise. Those that show any inclination for independent voting (noise) don't last long in the Party. Ask any "moderate" Gooper. They are Borg. You will be assimilated.

The Democrats are obviously different. They not only have such members, but their members are encouraged to form sub-caucuses, to organize, etc. It really is a remarkable difference in strategy and political world-view.

And I don't necessarily disagree with the Democratic philosophy, except to one extent. And that is when their balkanized structure interferes with their critical role as an opposition party.

Theoretically, the blue dogs may serve a useful role at times, as brokers between left and right. Some would make that argument. (I would respond that, if that is such a wonderful function, then why don't the Goopers host that broker group in their caucus for awhile? Why is it always the Dems to fulfil that reputed function?)

But when the Blue Dogs, or any sub-caucus, cripple the ability of their party to fulfil a role as opposition, there is simply no benefit that can counterbalance that failure.

As a member of the Navy (PN3, USN, 1991-2001), it was my experience that insubordinate sailors are considerably worse than just useless. They actively undermine the unit. The Blue Dog Democrats are obviously fulfilling the same purpose here.

If a group of sailors has to clean their area and one or two individuals decide that they'd rather watch TV, then if the supervisor doesn't come down hard on those slackers, morale will then suffer among the good sailors who are willing to do the job. Hey, why bother working hard if you can wander off to watch TV and not get punished for it?

Why would a Blue Dog Democrat suffer uncomfortable ads telling his or her constituents that they're traitors to America if the Democratic leadership doesn't tell them "Tough luck! You want to be a Democrat, you have to take the bad with the good. You want that 'D' after your name, you have to be worthy of it. Y'all have to EARN that 'D'!!!"

I know me some holes need fillin'.

I'd be interested in further analysis of why this work is being done, to some degree, in secret, almost as though they know they are committing crimes. Of course no one wants to be seen as being in the pocket of the telecoms, but what's the public justification?

Carney seems to be open about it, but not Hoyer.

Is he a Blue Dog? (Yellow Dog? Anyone?)

Were a few more large campaign contributions made?

Hmm, let's see. It makes no legal sense. It makes no political sense. It's not necessary, it's not smart, it weakens congress and the constitution and strengthens a lame duck president who's at less than 30% in the polls, and will only enrage the Democratic base. What gives? It's like releasing smallpox back into society after successfully nearly eradicating it. Huh?

Here's a wild and crazy idea, total conspiracy theory, so put your tinfoil hats on. Could it be, oh, that some of these Dems have something to hide, and to fear if these lawsuits are allowed to proceed--especially the discovery process, which might reveal the nature and extent of the crimes perpetuated against the American people during the Bush years, which some of them were directly complicit in allowing to happen, and perhaps might even have actively endorsed?

Could it be that they're hoping to avoid another Watergate, Iran-Contra or Whitewater, and want to ensure a relatively smooth transition from the Bush administration and 110th congress to the next administration and 111th congress, without messy and in their minds needless controversy and agita? I mean, why play the "blame game" when we need to too forward, not backwards? Taking care of the peoples' business is so much more important than blaming this or that person for something as trivial as a sustained and egregious violation of the 4th amendment and FISA. Who wants THAT?!? The American people want to move forward, people!

Or, could it be that Hoyer & Co., being Clinton supporters, want to ensure that the next president, whom they are hoping is her, doesn't have their power diminished in order to "get back" at a president who's in his final months. Not immunizing these telcoms might well result in congress passing laws restricting the powers of the executive, and we can't have that. Repubs had their imperial presidency, damn it, and now Dems want their go at it!

Look, I have no specific idea why this or that Dem might want to pass telcom immunity. I imagine that some because they're complicit in this illegal surveillance and want to avoid this coming out into the open in an election year. Some might not be legally complicit but ethicall and morally complicit, and have similar fears. Some might be in the pockets of these telcoms. Some are probably just being the same tired old non-confrontational Dems of the past 30 years, hoping to avoid a big scandal coming out in the open, which would be very stressful and get in the way of passing vital (i.e. pet) legislation like National Hog Farmer Week and extending ethanol subsidies. And some, I suppose, actually believe in the imperial presidency, especially when a Dem is president, and don't want to tear it down when we appear to be so close to having one. There is likely no one reason for why they're doing this.

None of which, of course, are in any way valid, unless one subscribes to the deep-seated belief that many members of congress clearly believe in, that being a member of congress is some sort of entitlement, and that the laws and ethical and moral constraints that apply to the rest of us don't really apply to them, they're they're special people entitled to special privileges, and how dare us hoi polloi try to deny this to them. I, for one, do not subscribe to this belief. They work for us, period, and qaint and naive as that sounds, that's precisely how we must view and treat them, if they're to do their jobs properly. Which they are clearly not in this instance.

So spare me the condescension and doubletalk, Steny. Do the right thing, or watch your power base in congress be destroyed. You will be the leader of a dwindling minority within a growing majority, out of touch with your party and country, and on a path towards losing your leadership position, if not office. You are going to bury yourself politically if you do this. Trust me on that.